Talk:Certificate of division/GA1

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

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 14:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Good writing
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: The only item I would address (and which is not in the GA criteria) is a redlinked "For further information" in the In Civil Cases section - it seems to me that this needs to be removed until the redlinked article is actually written.  I am a fan of redlinks in lists and other areas, but it seems to me that if we are putting a link for readers to get further info, then the article should already be present.  As is normally the case, you have done a very good job with this article.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: The only item I would address (and which is not in the GA criteria) is a redlinked "For further information" in the In Civil Cases section - it seems to me that this needs to be removed until the redlinked article is actually written.  I am a fan of redlinks in lists and other areas, but it seems to me that if we are putting a link for readers to get further info, then the article should already be present.  As is normally the case, you have done a very good job with this article.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall: The only item I would address (and which is not in the GA criteria) is a redlinked "For further information" in the In Civil Cases section - it seems to me that this needs to be removed until the redlinked article is actually written.  I am a fan of redlinks in lists and other areas, but it seems to me that if we are putting a link for readers to get further info, then the article should already be present.  As is normally the case, you have done a very good job with this article.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: