Talk:Keke Geladze/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) 23:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Since I already have both volumes of Kotkin on hand, I will review this article as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I can provide stuff from other sources if need be as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• An excellent article; no concerns to note. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Assessment against GA criteria

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):

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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: