Talk:SMS Árpád/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 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:


 * Copyedit done. Buggie111 asked me check this out. All is well now. NielsenGW (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Needs a full citation for #9, Halpern.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually you'll be OK if you list Halpern in the sources as your formatting is correct if the info is given there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done on both articles. Buggie111 (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)