Talk:Novum Instrumentum omne/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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:
 * C. No original research:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 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:

The main body of the article provides good deal of information about this historical documents and this is supported by the WP:Lead which provides an Introduction to the main body of the article. The Lead is also intended to provide a concise summary of the main points in the article; and this needs some inprovement. Once that has been done Ii will awward the article the GA-status which it merits. Pyrotec (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As the lead has now been brought up to standard, I'm happy to award the article GA-status. Congratulations in meeting the necessary standards. Pyrotec (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)