Jump to content

Talk:Chose Promise/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Should complete this within a day or two Jaguar 15:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry of the delay, I'm having trouble with my PC at the moment which limits me from editing. I'll finish this by tomorrow Jaguar 20:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to 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 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

[edit]

References

[edit]

On hold

[edit]

Sorry for the delay, I'm having troubles with my monitor and I can't see any text which is putting me off from editing/completing reviews! Overall a very well written article, a merit which I think is worthy of GA, hence the short review. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days. Shouldn't take too much work. Thanks Jaguar 16:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! ajmint (talkedits) 13:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

[edit]

Thank you for addressing them, this is another well written article and upon assessing it again I think it now meets the GA criteria. The other issues I mentioned above were only minor, but thanks anyway for coming back to this! Jaguar 19:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]