Talk:Strensham services/GA2

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reveiw

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Whilst many of the defects/comments raised in the last GAreview had merit, the article has been improved and is now more deserving of a GA.Pyrotec (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for appreciating the work that I have put into this, and in the past week all the work you have put into it yourself to bring it that last little mile :) I feel the need to dig out an appropriate barnstar here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]