Talk:Glass Spider/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):
 * B. MoS compliance (included, but not limited to: lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources (it also includes an appropriate reference section):
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary (including direct quotations):
 * C. No original research:
 * D. No copyright violations:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):
 * 1) 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 are relevant, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):
 * 1) 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 are relevant, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

OK then. I have no other issue with the article, so I approve its nomination. Well done. ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 00:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)