Talk:SMS Babenberg/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteriaReply


See the comments for the SMS Habsburg article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
Copyedit done. Buggie111 asked me to check this one out. All is well now. NielsenGW (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Needs information for the Halpern book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply