Talk:Keke Geladze/GA1

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

Reviewer: K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) 23:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Since I already have both volumes of Kotkin on hand, I will review this article as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. I can provide stuff from other sources if need be as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * An excellent article; no concerns to note. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail: