Talk:Tony Pajaczkowski/GA1

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

Reviewer: WikiOriginal-9 (talk · contribs) 01:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this one. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (No original research):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Status query
WikiOriginal-9, BeanieFan11, where does this nomination stand? It's been nearly two months since the review was posted, and I don't see that BeanieFan11 has made any edits at all despite literally thousands elsewhere in that period. If there still isn't any significant progress in the next couple of weeks, I'd like to suggest that the nomination be closed as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)