Talk:Alex Raymond/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:

   Some facts needed, but overall okay.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   One of the strong points of the article. Good job editors.

   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:

   Good job editors with all the great images. Makes the article all the more better.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Very good. Filled with great material. Although I do not necessarily like the Quotes section, it is okay to keep. The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Glad to hear on the quick pass. :) BOZ (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)