Talk:2005 UEFA Champions League final/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Fixed all this I think NapHit (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed all this I think NapHit (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The route to the final doesn't need to talk about every round, just summarise it. The last two sections are fine in the summary, post-match is more about reactions. Next season is not relevant to this article, and only a brief mention is needed on the 2007 final which is done in the lead, there is n need for an extra paragraph. NapHit (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The route to the final doesn't need to talk about every round, just summarise it. The last two sections are fine in the summary, post-match is more about reactions. Next season is not relevant to this article, and only a brief mention is needed on the 2007 final which is done in the lead, there is n need for an extra paragraph. NapHit (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The route to the final doesn't need to talk about every round, just summarise it. The last two sections are fine in the summary, post-match is more about reactions. Next season is not relevant to this article, and only a brief mention is needed on the 2007 final which is done in the lead, there is n need for an extra paragraph. NapHit (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The route to the final doesn't need to talk about every round, just summarise it. The last two sections are fine in the summary, post-match is more about reactions. Next season is not relevant to this article, and only a brief mention is needed on the 2007 final which is done in the lead, there is n need for an extra paragraph. NapHit (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * B. Focused:
 * 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

--Aspie me (talk)

Since an editor has requested an second opinon on this article - i have reviewed it inline with GA Critera and can not find anything wrong with it. Also since the comments above seem to off been sorted im passing this article. Well done Jason Rees (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)