Talk:React Media, LLC/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mdann52 (talk · contribs) 12:31, 4 July 2013 (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. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * Some unsourced statements; However, they seem to have citations elsewhere backing them up.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * Has focused coverage, without getting over-detailed or undue.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * The only reverted content seems to be vandalism
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Only issue is the watermark on the image; However, I'm sure the people at Commons will (eventually) get rid of it
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * No problems that I can see, I feel that this is a clear pass.
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Only issue is the watermark on the image; However, I'm sure the people at Commons will (eventually) get rid of it
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * No problems that I can see, I feel that this is a clear pass.
 * No problems that I can see, I feel that this is a clear pass.