Talk:Emilia Baeyertz/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 10:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

All good, I'd guess reasonably comprehensive on here too, probably not a great deal of material.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)