Talk:Aeroplane Jelly/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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):
 * It doesn't really go into anything between 1966 and 1995. Not a showstopper, but a good place for expansion.
 * 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):
 * A picture of the product itself, in some form, would be a welcome addition, but the absence of such a picture is not a reason to hold this article back.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * One of the best-prepared GA articles I've had the pleasure to review. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A picture of the product itself, in some form, would be a welcome addition, but the absence of such a picture is not a reason to hold this article back.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * One of the best-prepared GA articles I've had the pleasure to review. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)