GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'm GARDEN and will be reviewing this article for GA for you. I'm pretty new to the process so apologies if I screw it up a little :D
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Good, particularly the pull-quote.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Good references, no obvious doubts.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- As broad as it can be. Perhaps focusing a little too much on the video but it is a special one I suppose.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- No problems.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- Nor here.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- No many images you can add really.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall: I'm more than happy to pass this, well done!
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
