Talk:.bv/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is well written. I made a few minor copy-edits for clarity.[1]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References check out. Sources appear reliable, no evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Sufficient detail and focussed

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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   licensed and tagged.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am happy to pass this as and article meeting the Good Article criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)