Talk:Werner Mölders/GA1

GA Review

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

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• The article is well written. I have fixed any issues I had with grammar and seems to be mostly compliant with the MOS.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• The article is well cited, there appears to be no original research.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• The article is broad in its coverage, without being too broad so as to lose focus.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• The article maintains NPOV, and fairly represents the topic.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• The article appears stable. Most of the recent edits have been undertaken by only a couple of editors.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

• Images seem to meet the guidelines. Should be no dramas.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

I have reviewed this article, made any changes I felt necessary and now feel that it is a Good Article. As such I am passing it.

— AustralianRupert (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)