Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I will get to this tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I've marked a sentence that needs some editing. Classics is misspelled in your cites.

Y Fixed spelling of classics. Manxruler (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Magazines need publisher and place of publication.

YPeriodicals are never listed with publication locations; no style guides ever list this information, but for the sake of this review, the information has been added.

Quite right, that's my mistake. Feel free to revert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

So who gets GA credit for this? I feel I'm among those who should be given credit. Manxruler (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]