Jump to content

Talk:Karl Allmenröder/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: KommanderC (talk · contribs) 16:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this page. KommanderC (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

KommanderC (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check the edit source to see the review it is not showing on the template for some reason.KommanderC (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a drive-by comment, VanWyngarden & Dempsey is listed as a source but not actually cited. FWIW, even without VanWyngarden & Dempsey, the sourcing here seems adequate for GA, I don't see the need for more sources so long as everything in the article is cited. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]