Talk:I'm Just Wild About Harry/GA2
GA Review 2
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- After reading the article, I would like some details to be added, but nothing major that is within the scope of a GA review. I believe this is the only detriment to this article, therefore cannot honestly fail it as GA.
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Very good image at the top, and further media is provided (rarely for this kind of article), which I consider to be part of this criterion.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations, you have a good article! It is well-written, has helping media, is comprehensive in that it misses no major aspects, and obvious stable and neutral. All of the concerns raised during the preview review have been addressed, as far as I can tell, and the article satisfies all GA criteria. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)