Talk:G-spot/GA3

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

Reviewer:  Arctic   Night  18:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I'll be taking a look at this article right now and going through a list of problems I find (that can't just be fixed by me). Then, I'll make my overall decision!  Arctic   Night  18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is very well sourced, so I don't think we'll have any issues with verifiability here.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I really can't fault this article. I know I didn't take too long to reach a decision, but everything looks great - the article is incredibly well-sourced and the prose is excellent.  Arctic   Night  18:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)