Talk:Georgies/GA1
GA Review[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Danielyng (talk · contribs) 17:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I plan on reviewing this article for its Good Article nomination. --Danielyng (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)--Danielyng (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Intial Comments and Review[edit]
I would first like to emphasize that this Article is particularly well written. It contains a wide variety of media, and ample citations and sources. All of the sources and citations come from well established and reputable sources and contain no original research. The article is descriptive and contains clear and concise facts, in readable prose. From what I can tell, the Article meets the criteria for a Good Article.
Well Written[edit]
The article is clear, straightforward, and well written. Formatting is well thought out.
Verifiable with no original research[edit]
All citations are from reputable sources; no original research.
Broad in its coverage[edit]
The detail is a little too much, but not at an unacceptable level (in my opinion.) The article is broad, and covers everything needed regarding the subject.
Neutral[edit]
Relatively neutral, not biased.
Stable[edit]
Judging from the edit History, it is and has been stable.
Illustrated[edit]
Good amount of media, complies with copyright & fair use guidelines.
Danielyng (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Armadillopteryx: This was an easy review as it's clear you already went over this article several times and ensured it meet the criteria prior to nomination. Congratulations!