Talk:Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: No dabs

Linkrot: No dead links. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Unlike the previous kits MITS had offered, thousands of calculator orders came in each month. Suggest something like: Thousands of calculator orders came in each month, in contrast to poor results for previous kits that MITS had offered. I assume good faith that you will consider revising this minor grammatical inconsistency as it is really the only problem encountered.
 * Fixed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Otherwise prose is good, I made a number of minor copy-edits and added some wikilinks.]
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References check out, I assume good faith for off-line sources
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Broad and focussed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Fair and unbiased
 * 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):
 * All OK
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, I consider this interesting article to be worthy of Good Article status. It could do with the addition of Template:Infobox company, but this is not a GA requirement. Congratulations and thanks for preparing it so well for GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I consider this interesting article to be worthy of Good Article status. It could do with the addition of Template:Infobox company, but this is not a GA requirement. Congratulations and thanks for preparing it so well for GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)