Talk:River Weaver/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for the delay. I have been reading through this article has well as doing other reviews. Quite often I do minor changes to an article whilst I review it, but in the case of this article I've done most none - a tribute to the quality of the article. Pyrotec (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2011 (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. 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:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an interesting article. I have made two comments in respect of improvements, they can be found in the summary above. Aside from these, I have made little or no edits to the article: which I take to be a measure of its quality. Pyrotec (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)