Talk:Adam Pardy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly for someone who has shuttled several Flames through the GA process, there wasn't much to do with this article. I made a few minor grammatical changes, and other little things that didn't require any judgement.

Full review below, congrats on the article.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Piped a few links to make the flow within a sentence better.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Fixed one reference that wasn't displaying the access date correctly.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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:

   Congrats on the article, easy to read and no major issues.

   Thank you, and thanks for the review! Resolute 23:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)