Talk:Avro Canada CF-103/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Fixed. Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Added detail explaining the airframe fuselage structure was essentially the same but wing and tail surfaces had major alterations.Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Added detail explaining the airframe fuselage structure was essentially the same but wing and tail surfaces had major alterations.Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Added detail explaining the airframe fuselage structure was essentially the same but wing and tail surfaces had major alterations.Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Added detail explaining the airframe fuselage structure was essentially the same but wing and tail surfaces had major alterations.Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Failed, no response from editor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the changes were made but didn't know a response was necessary. Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)