Talk:.bv/GA1

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

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) 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
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Sufficient detail and focussed
 * 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):
 * licensed and tagged.
 * 1) 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)
 * 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)