This review is transcluded from Talk:WASP-13/GA1 . The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: I will review this article against the good article criteria . Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Reply
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Nicely written article, an interesting read.
Is it reasonably well written ?
A. Prose quality:
B. MoS compliance for lead , layout , words to watch , fiction , and lists :
Is it factually accurate and verifiable ?
A. References to sources :
I'm having issues with reference #1; the abstract does not appear to supply cited information. Resolved
–
I've found the PDF article
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
C. No original research :
I've no reason to suspect OR, but I can't seem to find cited info in ref #1. Resolved
–
I've Found the PDF article
Is it broad in its coverage ?
A. Major aspects:
B. Focused:
Is it neutral ?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable ?
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 :
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions :
N/A; No images used in article.
Overall :
Pass or Fail:
Article, overall, looks good to me. Will wait until I hear from you on the journal reference. On hold for seven days. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Reply
I've found the PDF and resolved the issue. Everything looks good; glad to list as good article . Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Reply