Talk:Paisley witches/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Prose good, complies sufficiently with MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References check, I assume good faith for off-line sources, no obvious OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Sufficient detail without unnecessary trivia
  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:
    Short and sweet, I find that this complies with the criteria, so am happy to list it. This has been a brief review but sufficient to check the criteria. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]