Talk:Kek Lok Si/GA1

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

Reviewer: Muffin Wizard (talk · contribs) 11:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I will do a review on this article as soon as possible, but please be patient. :)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Good.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All references used are reliable sources, seems fine.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Seems neutral.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Seems fine, I see no edit war.
 * 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):
 * I see all images are available freely to use.
 * 1) Overall: After a frequent more check to the article, I see there is no more problem, so I give it a passed, thanks for all your time to work on this article. :)
 * Pass/Fail: