Talk:Erica Hahn/GA1

GA Review

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 12, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Written in clear and understandable wording.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited to WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources - I also see some use of primary sources for the direct information about the character's storyline and her history within the show itself, but this is within reason and acceptable.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article is indeed broad in coverage, covering many aspects of the character's history, reception, and background on the program.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article is written in a neutral tone.

5. Article stability? No issues on the talk page, last talk page post is from May 2008, inspection of the article's edit history reveals some minor disruption from IPs and such but that appears to have been dealt with, just keep an eye on that. No other issues apparent in the edit history going back several months.

6. Images?: The image had an adequate fair use rationale, but I took the liberty of expanding on that on the image page, so it is now satisfactory.

 If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Cirt (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)