Talk:Emil Lang/GA1

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): ✅ b (MoS):
 * 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: yes
 * 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: yes
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: yes

preliminary comments

 * Talheim needs to be disambiguated. Also, you list Schaulen, Fritjof, in the bibliography, but I didn't find a cite for this source. I made some minor copy edits, mostly verbs and commas, and one confusing sentence. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! I believe I addressed both the disambiguation and made good use of Schaulen by adding on fact I had missed before. Thanks so much. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)