Talk:Mamie Eisenhower/GA1

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

Reviewer: Orson12345 (talk · contribs) 21:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

here for what they are not) Good to go for to be listed as one of the GAs.
 * 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 non-free 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Hello! Very well written article, sources are good and extensive, images meet the criteria, and overall just a good article. Meets all the GA rules. I’m happy to approve this article for GA status, great work!-- Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 21:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)