Talk:Tamar of Georgia/GA1

GA Review

I've reviewed the article, paying specific attention to grammar and fixing some errors here and there. Overall, referencing is well done and thorough, the article is well-written (impressive vocabulary for a non-native speaker), and with some automatized fixes that I did it seems to conform to the manual of style. The article is broad enough, although a minor point might be the lack of a background section introducing us to the more important prior events in Georgia's history (some of those are mentioned in the article separately). As a whole, it covers the topic perfectly, is stable and well-illustrated. I saw nothing that can be perceived as POV either.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congrats! Todor→Bozhinov 14:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)