Talk:The Philaletheis Society/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 17:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 5, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: This article is indeed well-written. There is a bit of usage of commas, but not to the point of run-on sentences or overly long sentences, or anything of that nature, or something akin to this sentence itself, but I would recommend, after this GA review, for the next step, of getting some folks to help with passes of copy editing, ideally people who haven't seen this article before, or at least, not for a while.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout to appropriate sources using in-line citations.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers multiple aspects of subject matter, including history from a good length of period of time, in addition to budget and operations.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Appears to be written in a neutral and matter-of-fact tone throughout.
 * 5. Article stability? I inspected the article edit history and talk page history, and found no outstanding issues or concerns with stability.
 * 6. Images?: Three (3) images used, all hosted on Wikimedia Commons, all with appropriate licensing and information on their image pages.

Short n sweet n educational, nicely done. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)