Talk:LG G2/GA1

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

Reviewer: Numbermaniac (talk · contribs) 05:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd review this for GA status. First impressions are that it's pretty neat, and should be capable of passing. -- t  numbermaniac  c  05:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * There's a few typos here and there, but nothing major to pick on as far as I've seen.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * I'm worried about a lack of references in the lead section of this article, however this shouldn't be too much of a problem as the references are provided later in the article.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * A good range of technical sources used for this article to describe the topic.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * A lot of detail provided, but not too much.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Both sides of the argument given to this phone and its features.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Seems relatively stable.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Both free and have CC licenses attached.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is a good article. Pass.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is a good article. Pass.
 * This is a good article. Pass.