GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 16:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't - had some RL issues.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  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 (inline 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:
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]