Talk:Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs) 20:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Only small issues to deal with.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Accolades section could use some minor prose to accompany the table.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   What is the ref titled "Hebzucht is legaal geworden"? It's published by someone I can't find on here, assumedly it is a foreign language piece? It has no real detail that I imagine someone could look up to verify the claim it makes, not that it is particularly controversial.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Awaiting clarification or improvement of highlighted ref.

Fixed the ref, added a little text to Accolades... and what image are you talking about? igordebraga ≠ 17:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I passed the images, the comment is from the template, I didn't notice it. Reading article... Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

OK I'm fine with the changes made, congrats for your contribution. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)