Talk:Mateiu Caragiale/GA1

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

I will begin reviewing this page shortly. Ricardiana (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Yes, the article is well-written - no errors, clear, sophisticated use of English.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Impressive number of citations to reliable sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Covers Caragiale very thoroughly.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Akcnowledges various points of view when necessary; employs neutral tone.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Some disputes in the past, but not since 2006, it looks like.
 * 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):
 * Images seem appropriate.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * PASS