Talk:Petrodollar recycling/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll do this one. Sagecandor (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 22, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Short article. Yes, short article, but short and sweet and well cited. Nice and concise and succinct writing style, I like it. Very encyclopedic topic, highly educational for our readers. And that is globally too, the article does not come across with a focus on any one locality which is good.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Very well cited to good reliable sources for every statement in the article.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Article covers major aspects well. Including good intro, capital flows, background, 1974–1981 period, 2005–2014 period, and Foreign aid. Foreign aid can probably be expanded a bit more, and also obviously post 2014, but it is good enough for "good", as of this point in time.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Article presents its subject with a neutral style and therefore satisfies WP:NPOV policies.
 * 5. Stable? Aside from minor vandalism, quickly addressed, article edit history stable going back to February 2016. Article talk page shows some troubling conflicts -- but those go back to August 2016 and seem resolved now.
 * 6. Images?: Nine images used in the article. All hosted over at Wikimedia Commons. I looked at the individual image pages for all of them, and they all look just fine.

Just want to say, once again, good job on the concise and succinct writing style. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)