Talk:Mihail Kogălniceanu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: Two found and fixed.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is reasonably good, complies sufficiently with the Manual of Style. I made a number of minor copy-edits for grammar and clarity.[3]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Adequately cited, sources appear RS, no RS, assume good faith for Romanian and off-line sources, spotchecks OK.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough coverage

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

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 correctly licensed and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   THis meets the GA criteria, so I am happy to list it. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Jez, thank you for your beautiful and clearly needed copyedit, not to mention the trouble you took verifying the article bit by bit. I also want to thank Ionutz for having nominated it. Dahn (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)