Jump to content

Talk:William Sudell/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
I shall be reviewing this article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
    • Adequately sourced
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
    • no cleanup banners
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
    • no edit warring
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
    • n/a

No problems with quickfail crieria, proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
  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 scope.
    a (major aspects):
    • The article is broad in its scope ....
    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: