Jump to content

Talk:Dragons of Autumn Twilight/GA1

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

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems checking against quick fail criteria, proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • The article is reasonably well written, but there is room for improvement in the prose style. I have made some minor copy-edits. Consider rewriting the lead to avoid successive sentences starting with the word It. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    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:
    Thanks; I'll take a look at that when I have a chance. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]