Talk:Brian Tierney/GA1

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * Web refs need access dates.
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:

The only issue I see with this article is that the references need access dates for the web links. Add these, and the article will be good to go for GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm not sure that it is necessary for newspaper articles I have added access dates anyway. Thanks for the review. Medvedenko (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's mainly for the web links that the access dates are needed, not necessarily because of what you're referencing. Thanks for adding them.  Everything looks good, so I am passing the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)