Talk:The Bacon Cookbook/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hadger 18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I read this article, and it is a very good article.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- This article definitely is prose and follows the manual of style, and I hardly found any grammar errors. Good job!
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- This article has reliable and verifiable sources, good references, and no original research. Good job!
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- This article covers important topics about the book and doesn't get off-topic. Good job!
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- This article contains no opinions but instead contains facts about opinions, doesn't contain words to avoid, and follows the rest of the neutral point of view policy. Good job!
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- I checked the history and saw that there are no edit wars or any other types of conflict that would harm the article. Good job!
- 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):
- Although there is only one image, it is used in a good place. Good job!
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Congratulations! This article passed as a Good Article. Good job! --Hadger 18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
Thank you! Cirt (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)