Talk:Blas Ople/GA1

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

Hi, I have reviewed this article for GA, and fixed a few little copy editing issues. I feel it fulfills the criteria of a GA. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

I congratulate the editors. A very nice, concise article.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): The writing is clear and concise b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): The article is well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Covers the major aspects of the subjects career and impact b (focused): Remains focused on the article topic
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)