Talk:Sera Monastery/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive, well referenced, well-illustrated article.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Thie is a well-reference and well-illustrated article that has a comprehensive scope. It's full compliant with the requirements of GA, so I'm awarding it GA-status. This article is some way towards being a WP:FAC, but as some of the references are "guide books", there may be questions over Reliable sources. However, I would suggest that this article is submitted to WP:PR. Congratulations on yet another GA. Pyrotec (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)