Talk:Ýdalir/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: No problems with the article. Though short, it covers the material well, and I presume there is nothing more to be said. Congratulations with another good article Arsenikk  (talk)  10:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: No problems with the article. Though short, it covers the material well, and I presume there is nothing more to be said. Congratulations with another good article Arsenikk  (talk)  10:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: No problems with the article. Though short, it covers the material well, and I presume there is nothing more to be said. Congratulations with another good article Arsenikk  (talk)  10:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again Arsenikk! Thanks for checking the article over! It seems you have forgotten to sign your name here though. :) bloodofox: (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)