Talk:Christopher Tanev/GA1

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

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 01:51, 3 December 2011 (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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * General
 * References good
 * Images good
 * NPOV good
 * Spotcheck revealed no issue with close paraphrasing

Another fine Canuck player article. The only concerns I had were very minor - a couple missing words and three dead links - both of which I fixed myself. I can see no reason not to pass this as a GA. Congrats! Resolute 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)