Talk:Seamount/GA1

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

Reviewer: Xover (talk) 13:50, 15 August 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:

Very nice article. Another good FA candidate I'd say. Kudos! I'll jump through the administrative hoops to get it passed as GA, but note that my Internet connection is acting up so there may be some delay. --Xover (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Encyclopedia of Earth: It's written by professionals (literally) and in association with CenSeam and a few other research-oriented organizations, so I think it's fine. Res Mar 16:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)