GA Review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Criteria
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- 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):
- a (references):
- The article is well cited, there appears to be no original research.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- 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):
- a (fair representation):
- The article maintains NPOV, and fairly represents the topic.
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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':
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Images seem to meet the guidelines. Should be no dramas.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- 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)