Talk:Angela James/GA1
Appearance
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 02:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Only minor things here. I went through and made a few minor, clean-up type edits before starting this review. If you could review them, and make sure I haven't changed the meaning of anything substantial, that would be great.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- No problems
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- This kind of overlaps a bit with #4, but the sentence about 'not being secretive nor politicizing', could maybe just be left out. Drawing attention to how someone doesn't draw attention to something doesn't quite fit.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- See above, but otherwise no problems.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Not applicable.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
The minor issues I had raised were addressed, I'll promote this to GA. Canada Hky (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)