Talk:The Ingenuity Gap/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It is a good article as it is. I added references to Robert Kaplan's article where he mentions Homer-Dixon, and changed a couple of repetitious words. But that's all. A nice article! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly writtenY

   B. MoS compliance: Y

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Y

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Y

   C. No original research: Y

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Does well in setting the context Y

   B. Focused: Remains focuses on the article topicY

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias: NPOVY

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc: Y

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Y

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Y

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Y

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time reviewing this. --maclean 01:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)