Talk:Transcarpathia/GA1

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


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

Prior issues have been corrected
 * 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 (OR):  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:

Lol is this a joke? The article is almost entirely unsourced. Don’t make a fake GA assessment again or I’l haul you before a noticeboard. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a way to encourage a new editor. Try being nice? Barrettsprivateers (talk)
 * A new editor should not be doing GA assessments, you should only do those after you have a strong understanding of wikipedia’s standards, policies, and guidelines. I’m sorry to have been so brusque. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)