Talk:Thommy Berggren/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Greatuser (talk · contribs) 07:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I have reviewed some parts and i have found too many issues from only some parts, and it does not meet the criteria. Here are some points i have added below
- for having starred in.. it is not a meaningful sentence
- Red links need to be removed
- Red links do not need to be removed from anything. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ref 08, e.g., these refs need publishers, accessdates if appropriate, author names, publication dates etc if appropriate... not just a website and/or names.
- Article lakes of Verifiability, see WP:V
- For each point Reference(s) need to be provided, so that it can be proved it's whether true or false
- Also there contains dead link, which goes against WP:V
and there are many other issues, I have not looked through the whole page yet. A Great User ✉ ✉ 07:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Review list
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail: