Talk:Polaris Project/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 04:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good article review (see What is a good article? for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References need to be formatted to indicate at least the publisher or author of the work.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * One image used File:Polaris Project Logo.png with valid fair use rationale.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Comments:I am quick-failing this article based on copy-right violations.  It appears much of this article was copy and pasted from elsewhere in Spring 2010 and gone undetected since then. Before re-nominating the article, account for where all the information has come from with references/citations and remove the refimprove tags. —maclean (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One image used File:Polaris Project Logo.png with valid fair use rationale.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Comments:I am quick-failing this article based on copy-right violations.  It appears much of this article was copy and pasted from elsewhere in Spring 2010 and gone undetected since then. Before re-nominating the article, account for where all the information has come from with references/citations and remove the refimprove tags. —maclean (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments:I am quick-failing this article based on copy-right violations.  It appears much of this article was copy and pasted from elsewhere in Spring 2010 and gone undetected since then. Before re-nominating the article, account for where all the information has come from with references/citations and remove the refimprove tags. —maclean (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)