GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cherrell410 (talk · contribs) 14:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second GA nom, following an auto fail from 8 years ago. The article seems to be more stable now, and I am ready to help make this a GA article. I am going on holiday from 27 July to 3 August so I may not be able to respond swiftly. Cherrell410(t · c) 15:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
Leaving my suggestions for improvement below:
I dealt with most of the problems alr Brachy08 (Talk) 00:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]