Talk:The Shortest Way with the Dissenters/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (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 June 17, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: The article is indeed well written. It is written in such a way as to be accessible to the reader even if the reader is previously unfamiliar with the general topic and background.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. Good citation formatting.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all major aspects. Short and sweet.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone. Subsections Genre and style and Reception and legacy cover multiple contrasting viewpoints, in some cases at odds with each other, while presenting those viewpoints in a professional manner.
 * 5. Article stability? Article edit history and talk page edit history stable upon inspection going back over one month.
 * 6. Images?: Three (3) images used, hosted at Wikimedia Commons. Enough info to confirm free-use status for GA, but probably not enough for FAC. Would need more info on some of those image pages about author, date, etc.

Nice job overall. 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) 00:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the review, and appreciate the comments. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)