Talk:Martin Peerson/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Fine
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I fixed some dead links and removed duplicate references and ELs which were already used in the notes.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * As complete as the sources allow
 * 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:
 * I am happy that this artcile meets the GA criteria, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am happy that this artcile meets the GA criteria, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)