Talk:Lockheed XF-104 Starfighter/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
What makes Ejectionsite.com a reliable source? Is Kevin Coyne a noted expert on the subject (i.e., has his work been published in reliable sources elsewhere)?
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- The article is in great shape, excellent work! The only thing holding up promotion is whether Ejectionsite.com is a reliable source or not. Parsecboy (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Website has been removed, so passing for GA. Parsecboy (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- The article is in great shape, excellent work! The only thing holding up promotion is whether Ejectionsite.com is a reliable source or not. Parsecboy (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: