Talk:February 2010 Australian cyberattacks/GA1

GA Review
Reviewer: Ankit Maity 03:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Is it reasonably well written? A. Prose quality: Mostly clear, but with possible improvements as pointed below. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Not too enamored with the mass of links for See also Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. References to sources: B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: C. No original research: Is it broad in its coverage? A. Major aspects: B. Focused: Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias: Is it stable? No edit wars, etc: 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: Overall: Pass or Fail:

Review was from a malicious account. A review would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have started at second review at Talk:Operation Titstorm/GA2 Racepacket (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)