GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 00:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Zanimum (talk)
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
- a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Check for WP:LEAD:
|
![]() Check for WP:LAYOUT:
|
![]() Check for WP:WTW:
Check for WP:MOSFICT:
|
![]()
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
- a. Has an appropriate reference section:
Yes
- b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
excellent (Thorough check on Google.)
![]() Check for WP:RS:
|
![]() Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:
|
- c. No original research:
Done
![]()
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a. Major aspects:
![]() |
---|
![]()
|
b. Focused:
![]() |
---|
![]()
|
4: Neutral
![]() 4. Fair representation without bias:
|
5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (None)
Images:
![]() |
---|
![]() 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
|
As per the above checklist, there are no issues with the article and it’s a GA. Thanks, Nicholas, very much for your diligence in writing such great articles.
Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)