Talk:Russian battleship Evstafi/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Keristrasza (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well-written:
- the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct
- it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
- the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct
- Factually accurate and verifiable:
- it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
- it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
- it contains no original research
- it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
- Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
- Illustrated, if possible, by images:
- images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
- images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
- images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
