Talk:Into the Crevasse/GA1

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

Reviewer: Matthew R Dunn (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * IMDb cannot be used as a source to back up any potentially contentious material about living persons (BLPs), the trivia and goofs sections that are based on user submissions, etc., but I removed them. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 reviewing the article. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 reviewing the article. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks for reviewing the article. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)