Talk:Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: No dabs

Linkrot: No dead links. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Unlike the previous kits MITS had offered, thousands of calculator orders came in each month. Suggest something like: Thousands of calculator orders came in each month, in contrast to poor results for previous kits that MITS had offered. I assume good faith that you will consider revising this minor grammatical inconsistency as it is really the only problem encountered.

Otherwise prose is good, I made a number of minor copy-edits and added some wikilinks.[1]]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References check out, I assume good faith for off-line sources
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Broad and focussed.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Fair and unbiased
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
All OK
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
OK, I consider this interesting article to be worthy of Good Article status. It could do with the addition of Template:Infobox company, but this is not a GA requirement. Congratulations and thanks for preparing it so well for GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]