Talk:Ted Bundy/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I peer reviewed this and feel it is close to FA standards and more than meets the GA criteria. For suggestions for improvement, please see Peer review/Ted Bundy/archive2. I also note that the dab link finder finds one disambiguation link that needs to be fixed. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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.:
 * Glad to see that a group of editors is working together on improving this article.
 * 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):
 * Please see the peer review comments on fair use images - I am not sure it would pass FAC with the Utah mug shot and perhaps the fair use photo of one vicitm
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Please see the peer review comments on fair use images - I am not sure it would pass FAC with the Utah mug shot and perhaps the fair use photo of one vicitm
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: