Talk:Ed Jew/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Remember to avoid contractions (such as "didn't").
 * 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):
 * I am interpreting the criteria as such: For a person it may be difficult to get a photograph, and since fair use cannot be used for living people, only if an image is available on the Commons would an image be required. On the other hand, I am a bit skeptical in including the document as an image. I will not remove it, but I would not have included it myself. Including portions of primary sources is not the job of Wikipedia.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A clear, good article. It reads well, is interesting, stays to the point and covers all relevant areas. Congratulations on a nice piece of work!
 * I am interpreting the criteria as such: For a person it may be difficult to get a photograph, and since fair use cannot be used for living people, only if an image is available on the Commons would an image be required. On the other hand, I am a bit skeptical in including the document as an image. I will not remove it, but I would not have included it myself. Including portions of primary sources is not the job of Wikipedia.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A clear, good article. It reads well, is interesting, stays to the point and covers all relevant areas. Congratulations on a nice piece of work!