Talk:Tamar of Georgia/GA1

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

I've reviewed the article, paying specific attention to grammar and fixing some errors here and there. Overall, referencing is well done and thorough, the article is well-written (impressive vocabulary for a non-native speaker), and with some automatized fixes that I did it seems to conform to the manual of style. The article is broad enough, although a minor point might be the lack of a background section introducing us to the more important prior events in Georgia's history (some of those are mentioned in the article separately). As a whole, it covers the topic perfectly, is stable and well-illustrated. I saw nothing that can be perceived as POV either.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Congrats! Todor→Bozhinov 14:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)