Talk:2010 Shanghai fire/GA1

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

Reviewer: AGK  [&bull; ] 15:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Happy to grant this article Good Article status. AGK [&bull; ] 15:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Concisely written; flows well.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Meets WP:V; no obvious factual errors or content of questionable accuracy.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Covers all aspects of the subject matter in adequate depth.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Satisfies WP:NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No ongoing edit wars or substantial expansion of the article. Incident is not a current one and is not rapidly unfolding.
 * 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):
 * Sensible and engaging use of images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: