Talk:Gardein/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Codyorb (talk · contribs) 02:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Beginning Good Article Review for Gardein. Codyorb (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2017 (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):

   Plenty of citations to reliable sources. No unsourced content or original research found. However, I would recommend removing the rumors about the Heather Mills endorsement, it's not very encyclopedic. It's a suggestion; it doesn't have to be removed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Comprehensive lead, as well as the rest of the article in general.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article does seem biased towards positive publicity of the company, particularly in the Awards section, although finding little negative publicity or controversy in research, I'll have it pass.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article stable

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

   Image not in public domain. Unless if the uploader of the image has the rights to it, I'm questionable about it. See WP:FUR, you nmay be able to attach a template to the bottom explaining why it would be free to use on Wikipedia. Other than that, images are well fitted.

Ok, it turns out it is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, meaning it's in the creative commons.

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Codyorb (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)