Talk:IB Diploma Programme/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 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 appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks for the review. I actually thought I'd deleted it from WP:GAN, and haven't done any work on it. This is the product of a number of editors; is it possible to add co-noms?
 * I've deleted the image. Will work on the lead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I saw it on the backlog and it seemed a shame to let such a nice article just sit there and fester. I am sure it is possible to add co-nominators. I think a note here might be sufficient. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks for the review. I actually thought I'd deleted it from WP:GAN, and haven't done any work on it. This is the product of a number of editors; is it possible to add co-noms?
 * I've deleted the image. Will work on the lead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I saw it on the backlog and it seemed a shame to let such a nice article just sit there and fester. I am sure it is possible to add co-nominators. I think a note here might be sufficient. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I actually thought I'd deleted it from WP:GAN, and haven't done any work on it. This is the product of a number of editors; is it possible to add co-noms?
 * I've deleted the image. Will work on the lead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I saw it on the backlog and it seemed a shame to let such a nice article just sit there and fester. I am sure it is possible to add co-nominators. I think a note here might be sufficient. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I saw it on the backlog and it seemed a shame to let such a nice article just sit there and fester. I am sure it is possible to add co-nominators. I think a note here might be sufficient. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)