Talk:Ask and Embla/GA2

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):
 * 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:
 * Everything looks great. Good work—I'll just pass it straight away. Please note the two changes I did: the use of "upright" syntax in the image, and the full url cite for the link from the Municipality of Oslo. Arsenikk (talk)  20:09, 8 September 2008 (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:
 * Everything looks great. Good work—I'll just pass it straight away. Please note the two changes I did: the use of "upright" syntax in the image, and the full url cite for the link from the Municipality of Oslo. Arsenikk (talk)  20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything looks great. Good work—I'll just pass it straight away. Please note the two changes I did: the use of "upright" syntax in the image, and the full url cite for the link from the Municipality of Oslo. Arsenikk (talk)  20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review and the work, I appreciate it! bloodofox: (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)