Talk:Kamaʻehuakanaloa Seamount/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 am reviewing this article for GA. It is an impressive article, and it is obvious a great deal of work has gone into it. Overall it seems very complete. I will go through it, looking for MoS and other issues and will copy edit any little problems. Hope that is OK with you, and if not, let me know. I do not anticipate any problems with this article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Final GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Well written   b (MoS): Follows GA criteria for MoS  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced   b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable   c (OR): No OR  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Covers all the major aspects of topic   b (focused): Remains focused on the article topic  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Is neutral in view point.  
  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:  

A very comprehensive and well written, well referenced article. Congratulations!

Mattisse (Talk) 20:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply