Talk:James Whale/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources: The online sources check out, no concerns here.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well researched and cited.
- C. No original research: No issues.
- A. References to sources: The online sources check out, no concerns here.
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects: While the FAC review suggested some further expansion, the article as written certainly is broad in its scope and coverage.
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects: While the FAC review suggested some further expansion, the article as written certainly is broad in its scope and coverage.
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: As the nom all ready was aware, this article easily meets the GA standard, and is something like 95% of the way to FA. I hope that after a bit of a break, the nom will feel motivated to continue the push for the bronze star.
- Pass or Fail: As the nom all ready was aware, this article easily meets the GA standard, and is something like 95% of the way to FA. I hope that after a bit of a break, the nom will feel motivated to continue the push for the bronze star.
