Talk:Vlaams Blok/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Two found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: Two found and repaired.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is reasonably well written. I made a number of copy-edits, mostly for grammar.[3]

   Complies sufficiently with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well referenced, sources appear RS, assume good faith for off-line sources, no evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Sufficient detail without excessive minutiae

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable, no edit warring

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Suitable licensing, FUR and captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I find that this article complies sufficiently with the good article criteria to be listed. The prose could be improved, but it it "reasonably well written". Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)