Talk:2011 U.S. Open Cup final/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 22:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

General

• Images are good
  • It is not required for a GA pass, but Alternative text for images is recommended
• Referencing is good
  • ref 47 (myfoxchicago) is dead. Ref 53 supports the statement, however.
  • Random spot check revealed no real concerns with close paraphrasing, though ref 28 toes the line a little.

Reading through the article, I found nothing to quibble over. The article is concise, complete and well written. I cannot think of anything missing, nor can I find a reason not to immediately pass this nomination. Congrats! Resolute 22:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've added alt-text to all images (2 had it, 3 needed it), and I've fixed the fox Chicago ref. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)