Talk:Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: No dabs

Linkrot: No dead links. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Unlike the previous kits MITS had offered, thousands of calculator orders came in each month. Suggest something like: Thousands of calculator orders came in each month, in contrast to poor results for previous kits that MITS had offered. I assume good faith that you will consider revising this minor grammatical inconsistency as it is really the only problem encountered.

Fixed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Otherwise prose is good, I made a number of minor copy-edits and added some wikilinks.[1]]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References check out, I assume good faith for off-line sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad and focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Fair and unbiased

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):

   All OK

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, I consider this interesting article to be worthy of Good Article status. It could do with the addition of Template:Infobox company, but this is not a GA requirement. Congratulations and thanks for preparing it so well for GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)