Talk:William Anderson (RAAF officer)/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Ian Rose in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 03:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  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:  
End note
  • As usual, I'm very happy. How about you leave some flaws in the next few articles, so I can feel worthwhile while reviewing your GANs! Very good writing – can you teach/tutor me how to write? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Tks for reviewing/passing. Re. writing, are you serious, 'cos I think you're a good writer -- I know I make a few changes/suggestions when reviewing your work, but I do that with everyone. Hell, I'd have copyedited Shakespeare if he put something up for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply