Talk:The Book of est/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: two found and fixed.[1] --Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I made one copy-edit.[2]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References, check out, ~~but I am not happy with the bare LOCN & OCLC numbers (refs #14/15/16/17) Can these be expanded, eg Library of Congress Catalog Record. Just so that the reader can figure out what they are.~~ Done

Other references check out.
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:

~~ON hold for seven days, just one minor matter to be addressed. --Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)~~ Thanks for sorting that minor issue out. I am now happy to pass this as a good article, congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to GA Review

Thanks very much for doing the GA Review. The above recommended helpful suggestions are now all Done. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]