Talk:Crime and Punishment/GA1

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

Starting GA re-assessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment No problems when checking against quick fail criteria. Proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia: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, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar 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.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * The article is well written. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * It conforms with the Wikipedia MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * The article is well referenced. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Citations are to reliable sources, no dead links. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * c (OR):
 * I find no evidence of OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * The article is broad in its scope . ..
 * b (focused):
 * . . . and remains focussed on the subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article folows a neutral point of view. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No evidence of edit-warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * One image is used, correct fair use rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Image is appropriately captioned. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have no hesitation in confirming GA status. An excellent well written, focussed article. Certainly worth consideration for featured article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have no hesitation in confirming GA status. An excellent well written, focussed article. Certainly worth consideration for featured article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)