Talk:LG G2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Numbermaniac (talk · contribs) 05:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd review this for GA status. First impressions are that it's pretty neat, and should be capable of passing. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 05:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   There's a few typos here and there, but nothing major to pick on as far as I've seen.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   I'm worried about a lack of references in the lead section of this article, however this shouldn't be too much of a problem as the references are provided later in the article.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   A good range of technical sources used for this article to describe the topic.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   A lot of detail provided, but not too much.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Both sides of the argument given to this phone and its features.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Seems relatively stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Both free and have CC licenses attached.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is a good article. Pass.