Talk:Blas Ople/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Mattisse in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I have reviewed this article for GA, and fixed a few little copy editing issues. I feel it fulfills the criteria of a GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): The writing is clear and concise   b (MoS): Follows MoS  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): The article is well referenced   b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable   c (OR): No OR  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Covers the major aspects of the subjects career and impact   b (focused): Remains focused on the article topic  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: NPOV  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

I congratulate the editors. A very nice, concise article.

Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply