Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/GA1

GAC

Note: See also archived version of this discussion, at Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard/Archive_4#GAC.

I reviewed this article on the following 7 criteria:

Well-written: Pass
Factually accurate: Pass
Broad: Pass
Neutrally written: Pass
Stable: Neutral
Well-referenced: Pass
Images: Pass

Congratulations, it passes. I gave Stable a neutral because it is a vandal target, but not a very big one, as it is currently being hit at 1 every 1 to 2 days. I was pleasantly surprised at the neutral handling of such a controversial man, and I would suggest that this article be sent to Peer Review in hopes of one day becoming a Featured Article. --PresN 20:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This reviewer is real lax in his criteria. LuciferMorgan 21:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure on the well written criteria. It certainly isn't NPOV though. There aren't many references. I'm gonna be bold and change the raiting. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 16:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't given any specific examples of a lack of NPOV either here or your section below, I'm going to be bold and change it back to that given by the reviewer until you can provide such examples. --163.1.165.116 18:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]