Talk:Fool's Gold Loaf/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 01:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- 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):
- The article dosen't contain an image. I couldn't find any online.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I do like the detail and regular occurrence of references, the only problem I have with it is the lack of an image. It's not necessarily a requirement for a good article, but I'd like to see one. Good job. Acalycine(talk/contribs) 02:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Thanks for reviewing, yeah I guess I need to get around to making one of these things just to take some pictures. Thankfully, the picture aspect is not a requirement, but unlike Bacon Explosion, the pictures typically come with the article's promotion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)