Talk:Reinhard Scheer/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
On first reading, before I get to the formal evaluation, this looks like an excellent article that I will have no trouble approving. There is only one oversight that should be corrected: Several citations refer to "Tarrant," but it is not identified in the bibliography. Reviewer: PKKloeppel (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that, I added the full reference to the bibliography. Parsecboy (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formal evaluation: The article is

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct: yes

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections and layout: yes

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information: yes

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations: yes

(c) it contains no original research: yes

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic: yes

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail: yes

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias: yes

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: yes

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: yes

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: yes

Summary: The article meets all the criteria for a Wikipedia Good Article. Passed. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]