Talk:John W. Campbell/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * N/A
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * N/A
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am happy to pass this article as a GA. It is well written, referenced and tagged. No OR, stable, broad and focussed. There was one citation needed tag, but I found suitable references.  The category still lists un-sourced, not sure why.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * N/A
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * N/A
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am happy to pass this article as a GA. It is well written, referenced and tagged. No OR, stable, broad and focussed. There was one citation needed tag, but I found suitable references.  The category still lists un-sourced, not sure why.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am happy to pass this article as a GA. It is well written, referenced and tagged. No OR, stable, broad and focussed. There was one citation needed tag, but I found suitable references.  The category still lists un-sourced, not sure why.