Talk:Gardein/GA1

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

Reviewer: Codyorb (talk · contribs) 02:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Beginning Good Article Review for Gardein. Codyorb (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Plenty of citations to reliable sources. No unsourced content or original research found. However, I would recommend removing the rumors about the Heather Mills endorsement, it's not very encyclopedic. It's a suggestion; it doesn't have to be removed.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Comprehensive lead, as well as the rest of the article in general.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article does seem biased towards positive publicity of the company, particularly in the Awards section, although finding little negative publicity or controversy in research, I'll have it pass.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Article stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Image not in public domain. Unless if the uploader of the image has the rights to it, I'm questionable about it. See WP:FUR, you nmay be able to attach a template to the bottom explaining why it would be free to use on Wikipedia. Other than that, images are well fitted.
 * Ok, it turns out it is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, meaning it's in the creative commons.

Codyorb (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: