Talk:Flying Blind, Flying Safe/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA, and will leave some comments below. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• This article is an excellent review of the book. It balances a description of the history of the book's publication, the qualifications of the writers, with an nice summary of the contents of the book and the subsequent critical evaluation. Your stance is NPOV, yet informative. Very well done.
• Prose nitpicks:
• The second portion of the book is primarily addressed to consumers - the books addresses consumers
• It hit number 10 - you use "hit" in a couple of places. I don't think that is encyclopedic wording.

—Mattisse (Talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)