Talk:Malawi/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- I fixed a few typos for you.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- A spate of recent vandalism, but it looks like there are no legitimate content disputes.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- Image:Malawi_coa.png tagging is unclear.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Please look into the image above, but the issue is neither confined nor unique to this article, and it stands as a GA even with the coat of arms removed. Pass, however, as an excellent, well-referenced example of summary style. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
Wow, thank you for the review and the quick pass. I'll take a look at the image caption and see if I can find something better. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)