Talk:1920 APFA season/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bald Zebra (talk · contribs) 12:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Great job overall, this article easily meets the Good Article Criteria and probably goes a long way to meeting the Featured Article Criteria too.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * One or two minor niggles that I was happy to fix myself.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * The lead is very good and summarises the article nicely.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * All the sources check out, no dead links to report.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * Clear and concise language throughout.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * Seven images used; one is from Commons, the others are all Public Domain
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Seven images used; one is from Commons, the others are all Public Domain
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: