Talk:Martin Peerson/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Fine

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I fixed some dead links and removed duplicate references and ELs which were already used in the notes.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As complete as the sources allow

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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am happy that this artcile meets the GA criteria, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)