Jump to content

Talk:Rutherfordium/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguations:none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    This is massively improved since my last review. Prose good and complies sufficiently with MoS.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References appear good, Rs and I assume GF for those which I cannot access.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Thorough without unnecessary detail.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
    Licensed, tagged and captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Excellent, I have no hesitation in listing this as a GA. congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]