Talk:The Eraser/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 16:34, 4 May 2015 (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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I see no reason to fail this very good article. Congratulations and thank you for your work! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow - that's the fastest and most painless GA review yet. Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)