Talk:Thored/GA1

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

Starting GA review Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment Pass quickfail criteria Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * This article is not reasonably well written. There are many errors of grammar throughout.  I recommend that you enlist a copy editor at WP:Peer_review/volunteers. I shall place the article on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)  I have performed more copy editing and the article is now reasonably well written. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * OK
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * checked as far as is possible. The ISBN checksums do not check.  Please address this. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)  OK now Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * OK
 * c (OR):
 * No evidence of OR
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * Broad in scope
 * b (focused):
 * Focussed
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Images OK, but there is no description on the image page for the coins. I have templated the uploader Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Please enlist help to copy edit as cited above Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Just the ISBNs of the books need checking and amending. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Ok, all good now, congratulations, passed as GA Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Please enlist help to copy edit as cited above Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Just the ISBNs of the books need checking and amending. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Ok, all good now, congratulations, passed as GA Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've given this article a copy-edit. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)