Jump to content

Talk:Certificate of division/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 14:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Good writing
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall: The only item I would address (and which is not in the GA criteria) is a redlinked "For further information" in the In Civil Cases section - it seems to me that this needs to be removed until the redlinked article is actually written. I am a fan of redlinks in lists and other areas, but it seems to me that if we are putting a link for readers to get further info, then the article should already be present. As is normally the case, you have done a very good job with this article.
    Pass or Fail: