Talk:Dragons of Autumn Twilight/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment No problems checking against quick fail criteria, proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:50, 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 reasonably well written, but there is room for improvement in the prose style. I have made some minor copy-edits. Consider rewriting the lead to avoid successive sentences starting with the word It. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * The article conforms with the MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * Assume good faith for print sources, all other references live. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * I replaced ref #6 as the original was not an RS. Other sources RS in context. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * c (OR):
 * No evidence of OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * OK Jezhotwells (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (focused):
 * OK Jezhotwells (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Stable Jezhotwells (talk) 14:14, 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):
 * images tagged OK Jezhotwells (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Appropriate captions and use. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am happy to confirm the GA status. Consider rewriting to improve prose style as suggested above. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll take a look at that when I have a chance. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy to confirm the GA status. Consider rewriting to improve prose style as suggested above. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll take a look at that when I have a chance. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll take a look at that when I have a chance. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll take a look at that when I have a chance. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)