Talk:Black Arrow/GA1

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

I will review this article, having already checked that it does not meet the quick-fail criteria. Colds7ream (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Flows nicely as prose, but for future reference could benefit from a longer lead section.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article is very well-referenced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Describes the various aspects of the project well.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Article seems stable, with no ongoing conflicts.
 * 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 good selection of images with concise summaries.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A great article, best of luck with it! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A great article, best of luck with it! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I've added some more references (both new ones, and additional citations to the existing ones), and I've expanded the short captions. If there are any more issues, please let me know and I'll try to fix them. -- G W … 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)