Talk:2009 North Korean nuclear test/GA1

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

Review by Nezzadar
Review opened. 21:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Completed 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC) - Result is APPROVED

Nezzadar's Review Worksheet
A good article is&mdash;

 :
 * (a) ; and
 * While I do not write in the format "30 May, 2009" it is acceptable. This was the only gramatical objection I raised. Thus, the article meets expectations on this section. Nezzadar (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (b).
 * Organized nicely, perhaps too categorized, but well done none the less. Nezzadar (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

:
 * (a) ;
 * See 2c.
 * (b) ; and
 * See 2c.
 * (c).
 * A very impressive list of sources. There is a place for every source and every source has its place. Kudos to the article writers for this one. I believe that this article exceeds expectations for the section 3 criteria. Nezzadar (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

:
 * (a) ; and
 * Could it use a bit more content? Yes. Can I think of that content off the top of my head? No. This might be a bit weak, but it works well enough that I am going to pass the article. I doubt this level of content would make the cut for an FA, but this isn't the nomination for an FA. The fact that so much of the article is dedicated to what other countries said seems to be more of a space filler, but it isn't unimportant, so as I said, it works well enough. Nezzadar (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (b).
 * As I said in 3a, there is a bit much on the responses of other countries, but again, as I said, I'm letting it pass. Nezzadar (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

.
 * I am going to note here that the article leans rather heavily against North Korea, but will not take action on this because most of the leaning is from international responses, and there is no doubt that the responses themselves leaned heavily against North Korea. This point must be adressed before the article becomes a Featured Article, but, in my opinion, is not critical enough to affect this nomination. Nezzadar (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

.
 * Edit history does not reveal edit war in progress. Users involved in isolated chunks. Nezzadar (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

:
 * (a) ; and
 * USGS image on the page, verified to be free-use. Source checked out. Nezzadar (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Infobox graphic on the page, supposedly free-use, will not contest. Nezzadar (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (b).


 * All images in infoboxes, relevant, captions unneeded. Nezzadar (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

APPROVED Nezzadar (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 