Talk:Windows 2.1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GeoffreyT2000 (talk · contribs) 03:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I will check the criteria now. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I think that cybernetnews.com is not a reliable source. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I've removed that one. Is there anything else that has to be fixed? Vacant0 (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I checked all the remaining sources, and I could not find any unreliable ones. So, I will make this article a GA pass now. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Vacant0 (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)