Talk:The Book of est/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: two found and fixed.[1] --Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- References, check out,
but I am not happy with the bare LOCN & OCLC numbers (refs #14/15/16/17) Can these be expanded, eg Library of Congress Catalog Record. Just so that the reader can figure out what they are.Done
- Other references check out.
- References, check out,
- 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.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
ON hold for seven days, just one minor matter to be addressed. --Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that minor issue out. I am now happy to pass this as a good article, congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Response to GA Review
Thanks very much for doing the GA Review. The above recommended helpful suggestions are now all Done. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)