Talk:Richmond, Virginia/GA

Good article nomination
This article seems to have stabilized quite a bit and has had a peer review. I've given the article a decent copyedit, fixing up a couple of loose ends, and adding details to the summary section, so I think the next step is to nominate for Good article status. There's still a bit more to do for Featured status, mainly there's still some sections that need photos, but I think it meets the criteria for being a good article presently. Dr. Cash 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Could be further improved with a few more inline citations, considering the amount of prose. PhoenixTwo 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail: