Talk:Mihail Kogălniceanu/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: One found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: Two found and fixed.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- The prose is reasonably good, complies sufficiently with the Manual of Style. I made a number of minor copy-edits for grammar and clarity.[3]
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- Adequately cited, sources appear RS, no RS, assume good faith for Romanian and off-line sources, spotchecks OK.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- Thorough coverage
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- NPOV
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Stable
- 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):
- Images correctly licensed and captioned.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- THis meets the GA criteria, so I am happy to list it. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Jez, thank you for your beautiful and clearly needed copyedit, not to mention the trouble you took verifying the article bit by bit. I also want to thank Ionutz for having nominated it. Dahn (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)