Talk:Matt Jarvis/GA1

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

I'll be reviewing this article at some point today, any additional comments from other reviewers are welcome. -AMBerry (t|c) 12:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Review
Apart from the tweaks I made myself, I can't see any reason why this shouldn't pass GA. Ok, the image isn't of the greatest quality, but that doesn't prevent it from passing.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Congrats. -AMBerry (t|c) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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: