Talk:Karl Marx/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Rcsprinter See what I've done Gimme a message  17:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets get cracking.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

I'm all happy with that. Thank you.  Rcsprinter See what I've done Gimme a message  17:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * 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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Yep, this is a great article. Goes to GA right away. I'd recomend it for Featured.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Yep, this is a great article. Goes to GA right away. I'd recomend it for Featured.
 * Yep, this is a great article. Goes to GA right away. I'd recomend it for Featured.


 * Hold on here - is see missing refs all over - dead ones and bare ones (that just the ref problems)  - humm think a third party should have a look here. Thank you Rcsprinter for taking the time to do this GA review -  however i think there is problams with the article that are  lacking in the review.Moxy (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed two dead links. Everything else seems to work, and I see no bare urls. If I missed something, please list it here and be more specific (which link/ref is dead or bare). Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "fact" seems to be overused.SBaker43 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What facts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I wasn't clear, the word "fact". Removed unnecessary "in fact" wording.  Left one that was quoted; didn't verify the quote.SBaker43 (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You'd removed a "fact" from another quotation, SBaker43, but I've restored it. No harm done... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks; should have checked them again.SBaker43 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this on hold or something?  Rcsprinter  Gimme a message  19:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall
Right well, I'll fail this then. I thought it was good, but you've spotted some mistakes. Some days have gone by and it's still in that state.  Rcsprinter  Gimme a message  15:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What mistakes? Can somebody clearly say what are the problems with the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All the above.  Rcsprinter  Gimme a message  16:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)