Talk:Prion/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   There are a number of un-cited paragraphs. I think all paragraphs have reliable source links, now. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)  Done

   There are a number of citation needed tags, also some verification needed tags. First half done. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC) All done, I think. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)  Done

   I repaired some dead links and tagged others using WP:CHECKLINKS. Fixed. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)  Done

   There are a few bare URLs in the citations, please use templates to attribute publication date, author, publishers, etc. Fixed. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)  Done

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:

   Overall the article is in fairly good shape. Main issue: Referencing as per above. ON hold until 7 March, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for your hard work, the article is much improved, I am happy to confirm GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The citation given (3) does not support the statement referred to.Rotlor (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)