Talk:Mihail Kogălniceanu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguations: One found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: Two found and fixed.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The prose is reasonably good, complies sufficiently with the Manual of Style. I made a number of minor copy-edits for grammar and clarity.[3]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Adequately cited, sources appear RS, no RS, assume good faith for Romanian and off-line sources, spotchecks OK.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Thorough coverage
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable
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 correctly licensed and captioned.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
THis meets the GA criteria, so I am happy to list it. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jez, thank you for your beautiful and clearly needed copyedit, not to mention the trouble you took verifying the article bit by bit. I also want to thank Ionutz for having nominated it. Dahn (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]