Jump to content

Talk:White Tulip/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 12:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Prose style is fine, I have no complaints there. MOS compliance is also faultless.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    References are well-used, any points raised are cited and sourced to avoid OR.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Article is just broad enough in its scope to cover all of the relevant points without moving elsewhere or drifting off-topic.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article is neutral.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    History is stable and uncontroversial.
  6. 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:
    Images are used appropriately and are attributed and sourced properly.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    With no complaints to be found, I'm going to pass this as a Good Article. Well done.