Talk:Leif Tronstad/GA1

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

GA Review

edit

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    To get it up to GA standards, I have done the following:
    • One-sentence paragraphs are not really a good thing, and starting the whole article off with one does not make it any better.
    • For biographies, flagicons should only be used to establish nationality, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). The overuse of flags drowns the infobox, creating confusion in the mind of the reader.
    • Try to rearrange sentences so that the same word does not appear twice in a row, in two following sentences.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  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 small copyedit was all that was needed to pass the GA criteria. Congratulations! Arsenikk (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply