Talk:The Ingenuity Gap/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It is a good article as it is. I added references to Robert Kaplan's article where he mentions Homer-Dixon, and changed a couple of repetitious words. But that's all. A nice article! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Congratulations! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality: Clearly written✅
 * 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: Does well in setting the context ✅
 * B. Focused: Remains focuses on the article topic✅
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV✅
 * 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: ✅
 * Thank you for your time reviewing this. --maclean 01:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)