Talk:Electric Mud/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    WEll written, complies with MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Well researched, a good range of reliable sources, assume good faith for off-line sources
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Sufficient detail - I don't suppose that there are figures for subsequent sales. It is still available I see (not necessary for GA status, but might be a useful area to explore for slight expansion).
  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):
    One non free image with correct rationale
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Excellent, I remember this album, I shall go and get a copy. I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]