Talk:Emil Lang/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by MisterBee1966 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   Done b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   Done b (citations to reliable sources):   Donec (OR):  Done
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   Done b (focused):   Done
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:   Done
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:   Done
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   Done b (appropriate use with suitable captions):   Done}
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: yes

preliminary comments

edit
  • Talheim needs to be disambiguated. Also, you list Schaulen, Fritjof, in the bibliography, but I didn't find a cite for this source. I made some minor copy edits, mostly verbs and commas, and one confusing sentence. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks for your help! I believe I addressed both the disambiguation and made good use of Schaulen by adding on fact I had missed before. Thanks so much. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply