Talk:Kefka Palazzo/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sjones23 (talk · contribs) 03:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again! I will be reviewing this article momentarily, so please bear with me, guys. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait, lads. Now then, let the GA review begin!


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 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 (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are inconsistent date formats and author name formats.
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All of the images have excellent fair use rationales and the captions presented here are suitable enough.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I will see if this article passes or fails the GA criteria. All right, I am going to pass this as a GA! Good work to everyone here!
 * All of the images have excellent fair use rationales and the captions presented here are suitable enough.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I will see if this article passes or fails the GA criteria. All right, I am going to pass this as a GA! Good work to everyone here!

Hope these help! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I updated the referencing, let me know if I did what was asked. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)