Talk:Tatwine/GA1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Pyrotec in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added a couple, or so, of wikilinks since they help clarify technical terms. It was not worth adding them to a "problem list".
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A short but well referenced article on a historical figure.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Not applicable: - no figures.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Not applicable: - no figures.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on gaining another GA for an Archbishop/Saint. Pyrotec (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)