Talk:Nyon Conference/GA1

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

Reviewer: Eisfbnore  talk 15:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a short, but well-written and properly referenced article by User:Grandiose, whose work with the SCW I have been admiring. Will give a review swiftly. -- Eisfbnore talk 15:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * (note the difference in the page range)
 * 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:
 * OK, think I've done everything you've mentioned – I wasn't happy with most of the things you flagged when I wrote them. I agree with the synopsis that it's short but complete enough, as it covers a small topic. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, then everything seems to have been seen to. I'll pass the article. Another great SCW article from the House of Grandiose! -- Eisfbnore talk 18:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * OK, think I've done everything you've mentioned – I wasn't happy with most of the things you flagged when I wrote them. I agree with the synopsis that it's short but complete enough, as it covers a small topic. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, then everything seems to have been seen to. I'll pass the article. Another great SCW article from the House of Grandiose! -- Eisfbnore talk 18:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * OK, think I've done everything you've mentioned – I wasn't happy with most of the things you flagged when I wrote them. I agree with the synopsis that it's short but complete enough, as it covers a small topic. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, then everything seems to have been seen to. I'll pass the article. Another great SCW article from the House of Grandiose! -- Eisfbnore talk 18:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, then everything seems to have been seen to. I'll pass the article. Another great SCW article from the House of Grandiose! -- Eisfbnore talk 18:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)