Talk:Cane Ashby/GA1

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

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!
 * 1) 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.
 * 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 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):
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)