Talk:Bart Gets an "F"/GA2

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:

   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:

   None provided.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   None Provided.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

All really good here. Two small errors, images check out, and all else in this article is sound. If you feel this review was in err, take it to Ga Reassessment. ceranthor 23:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What are the errors? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed them, you can see in the diff. ceranthor 22:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)