Jump to content

Talk:Martin Peerson/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 as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Fine
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I fixed some dead links and removed duplicate references and ELs which were already used in the notes.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    As complete as the sources allow
  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:
    I am happy that this artcile meets the GA criteria, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]