Talk:Kohlberg Kravis Roberts/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Explodicle in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Excellent work, looks like GA is just a quick pit stop for this article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    Some of the web citations could use retrieval dates to prevent link rot, so I've tagged them for improvement. Otherwise they're fine.
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Does a very good job of sticking to the facts.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
    A few minor recent reversions, but it doesn't appear to be a major conflict.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    A few non-free images where no free options are available, plus a very good free image of their headquarters.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Again, excellent job. Good luck with the FA nomination. --Explodicle (T/C) 03:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply