Talk:Randolph, Tennessee/GA2
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- starting GAreview.Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
GA review
[edit]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:
- 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:
- Well illustrated
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I've read the article in depth and also looked at the comments/discussions in GA/1. I'm satisfied that this article meeting the requirements of GA.
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, I appreciate your evaluation of the article. doxTxob \ talk 05:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)