Talk:A Whole Nother Story/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cloudz679 (talk · contribs) 17:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * there are basic errors in the prose
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is not adequately referenced
 * 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.:
 * the article was only created two days before its nomination
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article is not close to meeting the Good article criteria. Time should be taken to attribute the text to reliable sources, then improve the prose. A copy edit would be helpful following the work on the text, not before. Nominating the article for GA, two days after creating it, has not been a worthwhile exercise. Please spend time reading the criteria. C679 17:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article is not close to meeting the Good article criteria. Time should be taken to attribute the text to reliable sources, then improve the prose. A copy edit would be helpful following the work on the text, not before. Nominating the article for GA, two days after creating it, has not been a worthwhile exercise. Please spend time reading the criteria. C679 17:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)