Talk:Fort Bayard (Washington, D.C.)/GA1

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

Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the good article criteria, with suggestions for future development. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process.
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I'd be careful with some of the prose: in places it can become a little colloquial and I saw one or two contractions (i.e. didn't) that should be written out in full. In all though, an excellently written article.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Good Articles. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)