Talk:Frank Borman/GA1

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Review
Starting review. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

 * 1) Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
 * 2) Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
 * 3) Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
 * 4) Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
 * 5) Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
 * 6) Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. Not applicable.
 * 7) Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation. Not applicable.
 * 8) Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
 * 9) All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
 * 10) All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
 * 11) Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
 * 12) No original research.
 * 13) No copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 14) Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
 * 15) Neutral.
 * 16) Stable.
 * 17) Illustrated, if possible.
 * 18) Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

So far, so good. Need to read in more depth before commenting further. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

All boxes ticked. It needed several minor amendments and there was a bit of inconsistency around Bill/William Anders and the modules but otherwise it's absolutely fine and sails through this review. Definitely a good article. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)