Talk:The Million Dollar Homepage/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * File:The Million Dollar Homepage.png needs a fair-use rationale. It already has a copyright tag, but a specific fair-use rationale for its use in this article is needed. Non-free use rationale guideline has guidelines on how these should be structured and what they need to contain
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm putting this review on hold for seven days to allow a fair-use rationale to be added. Also, at least one external link in the article deadlinks and should be fixed (see ). I'll be watching this page, so when you're done with those you can either leave me a note here or on my talk page and I'll take a look. Otherwise, everything looks great! -Drilnoth (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:The Million Dollar Homepage.png needs a fair-use rationale. It already has a copyright tag, but a specific fair-use rationale for its use in this article is needed. Non-free use rationale guideline has guidelines on how these should be structured and what they need to contain
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm putting this review on hold for seven days to allow a fair-use rationale to be added. Also, at least one external link in the article deadlinks and should be fixed (see ). I'll be watching this page, so when you're done with those you can either leave me a note here or on my talk page and I'll take a look. Otherwise, everything looks great! -Drilnoth (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing. I have updated the image to how it is today, and added a fair use rationale. As for the deadlink, the deadlink checker says that is dead, but when I click on it I have no problem seeing it. Before I take this to WP:FAC, do you have any other suggestions for the page? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay; I wouldn't worry about the link then. Anyway, thanks for updating the image rationale; I'll be passing this. As to an FAC, I would highly recommend one; I was really impressed by the article, and would support it in an FAR. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)