Talk:Ina Kaplan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 08:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Complies with MoS, prose is solid.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   References all check out, no issues.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Would be nice to have an image, but I couldn't find a free one of the subject. Not the end of the world.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Pass as GA, no significant issues. My only other note is that the last external link is dead. Sorry for the short review, I really couldn't find anything else to improve. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)