Talk:Mount Greylock/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Mr. R00t    Talk  19:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Review done. This is now a good article.  Mr. R00t   Talk  19:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Note
Review abandoned as per WT:Good article nominations. New reviewer please start under here. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Criteria
It looks good to go.  Mr. R00t   Talk  19:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: - Mostly.
 * C. No original research: -probably not
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc: -No edit wars but plenty of vandalism None in last 60 days.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc: -No edit wars but plenty of vandalism None in last 60 days.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: