Talk:Triangulum/GA1

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 14:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I think this is an exceptionally well-written small article. Good job, editors.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Prose is clear.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Layout is appropriate. No MoS issues that I can see.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * I see no original research.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Seems quite stable after the last round of heavy edits.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images are free and tagged with permission.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Images are relevant.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I've no problem passing this article.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Images are relevant.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I've no problem passing this article.


 * thanks! I think this might be the first time ever I've got an article through with no tweaks required :) ...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to find things to tweak. I may have missed some minor grammar or spelling - I hope not - but the fundamentals of a good article are easily met with this one. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)