Talk:Star Alliance/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Negative24 (talk · contribs) 19:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The tables in this article add lots of meaningful information to this article. Article is heavy in data but I don't know of anything else that should be added to the article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Two sentences in the Expansion during 2011 and beyond section sound like journal entries. They are The new decade saw the Star Alliance adding new members, but also losing some due to corporate restructuring and collapse. and 2012 was a year filled with several departures, new members, and restructurings. Not that big of a deal but need to be changed.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
I removed the long list of current members in the lead since it doesn't summarize the article and is already included in the sections below.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Last major edit occurred last September.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

I have addressed your issues you stated in the "Expansion during 2011 and beyond" section. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 20:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrWooHoo: Looks good. I've updated the review page. -24^Talk 20:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]