Talk:Revolution Software/GA2

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

Reviewer: 7arazred (talk · contribs) 21:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) It is well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The lead adequately summarises the article, see WP:LEAD
 * The prose good, it is "reasonably well written".
 * It's well organised, information is presented logically. Please read WP:MoS and subpages.
 * 1) It is accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * stable
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Shoddily put together, please read the good article criteria and make sure that this article meetrs them before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This artcile has not been reviewed. 7arazred simply copied and pasted Talk:Revolution Software/GA1 altering the failure points to passes. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconding the above just for the record. Apparently nominated by Bsbass, though I cannot see how this is any short of socking given 7arazred created this page 10 min later. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)