Talk:Beckman–Quarles theorem/GA1

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

Reviewer: The person who loves reading (talk · contribs) 16:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * The prose is very clear, and there is no spelling or grammar mistakes.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * No known manual of style issues.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * This article contains many references which I can identify the source.
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * All reliable sources.
 * c. (OR):
 * No original research.
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * No close paraphrasing.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * Main aspects are covered.
 * b. (focused):
 * No unnecessary details.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Very neutral.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Nice image with a suitable caption.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Nice image with a suitable caption.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Nice image with a suitable caption.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail: