Talk:Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I am concerned that the first sentence does not define the incident broadly enough. The first sentence is covered in technical details, and only presents the start of the incident. The first sentence is the key to the article, and this one holds the whole article down. Also, boldface text should not be wikilinked.
   • I am not an extremely computer-technical person, but sufficient that I can follow the prose in "effects on Wikipedia". Still, I do not understand how the two incidents are related. Was the rerouteing to the proxy serves of all traffic due to the blacklist? This should be specified a little more clearly.

Yeah, I'm fixing this right now. ViperSnake151  Talk  13:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Ref 7 and 8 (Yahoo and AP articles) are dead.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Three minor issues and the article will pass. Good work so far. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

   Since you addressed the concerns and Arsenikk seems to have disappeared, I'll pass this as a GA in his place. Wizardman 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)