Talk:Mateiu Caragiale/GA1

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

GA Review

edit

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

I will begin reviewing this page shortly. Ricardiana (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    Yes, the article is well-written - no errors, clear, sophisticated use of English.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Impressive number of citations to reliable sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Covers Caragiale very thoroughly.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Akcnowledges various points of view when necessary; employs neutral tone.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
    Some disputes in the past, but not since 2006, it looks like.
  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):  
    Images seem appropriate.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    PASS