Talk:Mateiu Caragiale/GA1

GA Review

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

I will begin reviewing this page shortly. Ricardiana (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Yes, the article is well-written - no errors, clear, sophisticated use of English.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Impressive number of citations to reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers Caragiale very thoroughly.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Akcnowledges various points of view when necessary; employs neutral tone.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Some disputes in the past, but not since 2006, it looks like.

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):

   Images seem appropriate.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   PASS