Talk:Malin Akerman/GA1

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

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 23:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


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

I think this says it all. I've never seen a peer review with so few suggestions for improvement before. This article is very well done, all I did was add a couple wikilinks. Keep up the good work, and think about reviewing articles when you're comfortable with the criteria.
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: