Talk:Martin Peerson/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Reassessment

GA Reassessment

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    Fine
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    I fixed some dead links and removed duplicate references and ELs which were already used in the notes.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    As complete as the sources allow
  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:  
    I am happy that this artcile meets the GA criteria, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply