Talk:Cane Ashby/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: BrickHouse337 (talk · contribs) 23:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Fairly well written. I see the League of CopyEditors' stamp of completion on the talk page as well. Good job!

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• Looks good; all of the sources are reliable and verifiable. Great job.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Fairly well covered as far as focus.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, the article is in good article condition. Over time, there may be some areas of it to improve, which there should always be with any articles regardless. Pass'. --Brick House 337 23:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)