Talk:Fra Mauro formation/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Szzuk (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm a physicist so within my remit.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Sources are good but ref 4 contains a bad link.
- Done Ref 4 has been repaired. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sources are good but ref 4 contains a bad link.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Scope's good, not too broad or too narrow.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Yes, it's an academic treatment of the subject.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, hard to argue over:
- History is stable and uncontroversial.
- No edit wars, hard to argue over:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- All the images are public domain.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass. Article is good, reference 4 contains a bad link. It would be unfair to fail it just for that but it needs fixing.
- Pass or Fail: