Talk:Thommy Berggren/GA1

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

Reviewer: Greatuser (talk · contribs) 07:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I have reviewed some parts and i have found too many issues from only some parts, and it does not meet the criteria. Here are some points i have added below and there are many other issues, I have not looked through the whole page yet. A Great User ✉  ✉  07:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) for having starred in.. it is not a meaningful sentence
 * 2) Red links need to be removed
 * Red links do not need to be removed from anything. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Ref 08, e.g., these refs need publishers, accessdates if appropriate, author names, publication dates etc if appropriate... not just a website and/or names.
 * 2) Article lakes of Verifiability, see WP:V
 * 3) For each point Reference(s) need to be provided, so that it can be proved it's whether true or false
 * 4) Also there contains dead link, which goes against WP:V

Review list

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 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 (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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: