Talk:Jack Coggins/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Reasonably well written, I did have to clean up several spelling mistakes. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • all links, live

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • ok

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • tagged, witth fair use rationales

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • OK, this passes muster as a GA - the prose could be improved in places. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)