Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checking against GA criteria
- GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
I fixed two dead links. However a number of important statemnets are unreferenced, I have tagged them. All sources appear reliable.
- Done. howcheng {chat} 00:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Some referencing issues to be fixed, on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, everything alright now. Keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]