Talk:Warner and Swasey Observatory/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Reassessment

GA Reassessment

edit

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    I made some copy-edits for clarity. The 'Lede needs expansion - it shoul summarize the entire article.  Y
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    There are many dead links. I fixed what I could with WP:CHECKLINKS. Overall the referencing is entirely inadequate. All that is currently covered is the discoveries made by the observatory.  Y
  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:  
    I think everything was fixed. Ruslik_Zero 15:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
    OK, all seem fine now, thanks for your hard work. Keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply