Talk:Kefka Palazzo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sjones23 (talk · contribs) 03:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again! I will be reviewing this article momentarily, so please bear with me, guys. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait, lads. Now then, let the GA review begin!

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are inconsistent date formats and author name formats.

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):

   All of the images have excellent fair use rationales and the captions presented here are suitable enough.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I will see if this article passes or fails the GA criteria.All right, I am going to pass this as a GA! Good work to everyone here!

Hope these help! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I updated the referencing, let me know if I did what was asked. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)