Talk:Annika Sörenstam/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jackyd101 in topic GA Reassessment

GA Reassessment

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
The prose is OK, a 7/10.
Several sections, particularly the first in the main body are a bit manic, with too many short paragraphs which would be better written as three or four longer ones.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation):   b (all significant views):  
  • It is stable.
     
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned):   b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):   c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: