Talk:William E. Woods/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Kavyansh.Singh in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 13:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Nominator: Ezlev (talk · contribs) at 21:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA criteria

edit
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    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):  }
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  

Comments

edit

Prose

edit

Nice article!

Images

edit

References

edit

Pretty solid article; promoting! If you have time and inclination, would appreciate if you can review any of these. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply