Talk:Cuthbert of Canterbury/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed a few "minor problems" as I reviewed, but I'm not listing them here. I now regard the article as GA-compliant. Pyrotec (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Not applicable - no illustrations.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Not applicable - no illustrations.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Another "notch" on your long list of GA's. Congratulations on the GA. Pyrotec (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)