Talk:Center for Indoor Air Research
Appearance
Center for Indoor Air Research received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Center for Indoor Air Research has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: December 6, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Center for Indoor Air Research/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguations: No links found.
Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.
Checking against the GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- No original research found.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I am promoting this article on the basis that it meets the first, second and third criterion. It is well written, researched, and broad for the subject matter. I couldn't find any issues with this one, so I'll pass it. JAGUAR 22:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)