Talk:International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/GA1

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

Reviewer: Meclee (talk · contribs) 21:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

1.  Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[5]

I find the article to be clear and concise, grammatical, and in compliance.

2.   Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[6] and (c) it contains no original research.

Article appears factually accurate and is definitely verifiable.

3.   Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[7] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Gives good coverage.

4.   Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[8] Illustrated, if possible, by images:[9]

Un-baised.

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[10]

No suitable images available.

Will await further comments/reviews for 10 days. Meclee (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Period passed without further comment. Meclee (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)