Talk:Fool's Gold Loaf/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 01:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The article dosen't contain an image. I couldn't find any online.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I do like the detail and regular occurrence of references, the only problem I have with it is the lack of an image. It's not necessarily a requirement for a good article, but I'd like to see one. Good job. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 02:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, yeah I guess I need to get around to making one of these things just to take some pictures. Thankfully, the picture aspect is not a requirement, but unlike Bacon Explosion, the pictures typically come with the article's promotion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]