Talk:Dinesh Karthik/GA1

GA Reassessment

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. In all a very good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

Only one slight comment here, which is that a new heading may be appropriate after Recall, as the text continues onto other subjects and takes up most of the article unbroken. Try adding a new heading in at some pointto break this up.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• 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: