Talk:Chelsea Manning/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 04:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check the article and its edit history for the following basic problems which are sometimes found in GA nominations.


 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Verifiability. ✅
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ✅
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, POV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, citation needed, clarifyme, or similar tags. (See also QF-tags.)✅
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.✅
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.✅

 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
Please add any related discussion here.

Additional Notes
Before we begin the review

There are some image issues to address. The portrait in the infobox and the image of Manning as a child need to have a fair use rationale and proper iformation, but i am not sure the portrait is public domain, and i dispute the use of manning as a child being needed for the fair use rational of an image the actual copyright holder is the owner of the image and OTRS permissions would be needed and some other information added to make this meet criteria for GA.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)