Talk:White Tulip/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 12:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Prose style is fine, I have no complaints there. MOS compliance is also faultless.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   References are well-used, any points raised are cited and sourced to avoid OR.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Article is just broad enough in its scope to cover all of the relevant points without moving elsewhere or drifting off-topic.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   History is stable and uncontroversial.

6. 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:

   Images are used appropriately and are attributed and sourced properly.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   With no complaints to be found, I'm going to pass this as a Good Article. Well done.