Talk:2011 U.S. Open Cup final/GA1

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

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 22:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * General
 * Images are good
 * It is not required for a GA pass, but Alternative text for images is recommended
 * Referencing is good
 * ref 47 (myfoxchicago) is dead. Ref 53 supports the statement, however.
 * Random spot check revealed no real concerns with close paraphrasing, though ref 28 toes the line a little.

Reading through the article, I found nothing to quibble over. The article is concise, complete and well written. I cannot think of anything missing, nor can I find a reason not to immediately pass this nomination. Congrats! Resolute 22:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I've added alt-text to all images (2 had it, 3 needed it), and I've fixed the fox Chicago ref. --SkotyWATC 00:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)