Talk:World War Z/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Brook-right Romero left.JPG = I moved the image to Wikimedia Commons.
File:World War Z book cover.jpg = I expanded the rationale on the image page.
File:World War Z contest winner.jpg = Not done, I added headers but this image page is missing fields and needs some more info. I will move on to a Stability review of the article, once this last image has been addressed. Keep me posted at this page. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added information to the fields. In all honesty I don't have much experience with pictures, but I think I added the necessary information. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

Article edit history shows some minor issues of IP vandalism to be aware of, no major conflicts going back over one month.
Article talk page shows positive collaboration, also no major conflicts/issues going back over several months.

On to overall review next. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 13, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Written pretty well throughout, but going forward I definitely would recommend a peer review and also copyediting from a few editors previously uninvolved with the article - could try posting to talk pages of related WikiProjects, and also to WP:GOCE.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: The individual subsections within the subsection Themes could be expanded upon further, but this is not a sticking point for me for GA.

4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone.

5. Article stability? See above.

6. Images?: See above.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Cirt (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]