Talk:Ars Technica/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Link rot: none found

Checking against GA criteria

 * 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):
 * 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:
 * Well, short and sweet. I can't find anything to pick holes in [even though I tried, really hard! :-)]. This article is well written, well referenced to reliable sources, stable, broad, thorough and focussed, illustration is correctly tagged. An interesting article about one of the first important web magazines. I am happy to list this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Well, short and sweet. I can't find anything to pick holes in [even though I tried, really hard! :-)]. This article is well written, well referenced to reliable sources, stable, broad, thorough and focussed, illustration is correctly tagged. An interesting article about one of the first important web magazines. I am happy to list this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, short and sweet. I can't find anything to pick holes in [even though I tried, really hard! :-)]. This article is well written, well referenced to reliable sources, stable, broad, thorough and focussed, illustration is correctly tagged. An interesting article about one of the first important web magazines. I am happy to list this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)