Jump to content

Talk:The Ingenuity Gap/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It is a good article as it is. I added references to Robert Kaplan's article where he mentions Homer-Dixon, and changed a couple of repetitious words. But that's all. A nice article! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality: Clearly writtenGreen tickY
    B. MoS compliance: Green tickY
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources: Green tickY
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Green tickY
    C. No original research: Green tickY
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: Does well in setting the context Green tickY
    B. Focused: Remains focuses on the article topicGreen tickY
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias: NPOVGreen tickY
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc: Green tickY
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Green tickY
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Green tickY
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Green tickY

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time reviewing this. --maclean 01:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]