Talk:Jack Coggins/GA1

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

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Checking against GA criteria[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • Reasonably well written, I did have to clean up several spelling mistakes. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • all links, live
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • ok
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    • tagged, witth fair use rationales
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    • OK, this passes muster as a GA - the prose could be improved in places. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]