Talk:Certificate of division/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 14:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall: The only item I would address (and which is not in the GA criteria) is a redlinked "For further information" in the In Civil Cases section - it seems to me that this needs to be removed until the redlinked article is actually written. I am a fan of redlinks in lists and other areas, but it seems to me that if we are putting a link for readers to get further info, then the article should already be present. As is normally the case, you have done a very good job with this article.
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail: