Talk:Electric Mud/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * WEll written, complies with MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Well researched, a good range of reliable sources, assume good faith for off-line sources
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Sufficient detail - I don't suppose that there are figures for subsequent sales. It is still available I see (not necessary for GA status, but might be a useful area to explore for slight expansion).
 * 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):
 * One non free image with correct rationale
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Excellent, I remember this album, I shall go and get a copy. I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Excellent, I remember this album, I shall go and get a copy. I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)