Jump to content

Talk:Ursula and Sabina Eriksson/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AGK [] 22:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Concisely written; flows well. Nice summary of all the events, leaving no "unanswered questions" (as is quite common with articles about events). I noticed a few punctuation irregularities when reviewing, which I fixed; I'm guessing that's just a small eccentricity of the writing of the primary author :P.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Meets WP:V; no obvious factual errors. Cites a variety of reliable sourced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Covers all aspects of the subject matter, in adequate depth.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Satisfies WP:NPOV.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No ongoing edit wars or substantial expansion of the article. Incident is not a current one.
  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):
    No images bar the map, but that is understandable. The map, by the by, is very nice, and adds a lot to the article overall.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Happy to grant this article GA status! AGK [] 22:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]