Talk:Rip Hawk/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

A few comments that don't fit into the review form, I'd like some elaboration on the following statements That's all for now. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * unique for wearing suits to their matches - Why was that unique?
 * the Blond Bombers were involved in a series of unusual matches - Explain why that was unusual, it's not that unusual today after all.
 * I beliece I have addressed all of these concerns. Thanks for the detailed review, and please let me know if anything needs more work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read through it, I like the changes and I agree it's now a GA article, congratulations.MPJ-DK (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)