Talk:Strensham services/GA2

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

GA reveiw

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Whilst many of the defects/comments raised in the last GAreview had merit, the article has been improved and is now more deserving of a GA.Pyrotec (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for appreciating the work that I have put into this, and in the past week all the work you have put into it yourself to bring it that last little mile :) I feel the need to dig out an appropriate barnstar here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)