Talk:Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak/GA3

GA Review 3
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MisterWiki   talk   contribs  01:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose actually needs some work. Unexperienced persons without knowledge of medicine or that kind of things maybe will not understand the article. That's why it needs some work. That's why Simple Wikipedia exists.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Well referenced and is verifiable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The captions are fine, and the image licensing issues too.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: The article is fine. BoP has done a great job on the page. I think the article deserves to be a GA.
 * The captions are fine, and the image licensing issues too.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: The article is fine. BoP has done a great job on the page. I think the article deserves to be a GA.