Talk:Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech/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) 00:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~Two citation needed tags are outstanding from July 2009~~ Done
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Just 2 citation needed tags need addressing. On hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looked for sources and couldn't find them, so removed the statements. Technically this fixes the issue. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that is good enough for me, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I wasn't able to take care of this earlier. It looks like Wizardman did what I would have done, given that we can't find sources for those things. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]