Talk:Twin Spica/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 21:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria

 * Sources ✅
 * Neutral ✅
 * No outstanding cleanup tags ✅
 * Stable ✅
 * Not related to a current event ✅

Checklist: A good article is...

Well-written

 * 1) The prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct ✅
 * No major grammar problems found -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)
 * 1) It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. ✅
 * Looks like it is in compliance with WP:MOS-AM -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)

Factually accurate and verifiable

 * 1) It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout ✅
 * Practically everything is attributed to a reliable source. No problems here -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)
 * 1) It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines ✅
 * Yes -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)
 * 1) it contains no original research. ✅
 * None as far as I can tell -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)

Broad in its coverage

 * 1) it addresses the main aspects of the topic ✅
 * It addresses each area of coverage required by the MOS and covers each in detail. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)
 * 1) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail ✅
 * Maintains a real-world frame and stays on topic throughout the article. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)

Neutral

 * Tt represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. ✅
 * Not as much of an issue with fiction articles, but no it is not written from a fan POV. The tone is appropriate too.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)

Stable

 * it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. ✅
 * While major work on this article occured this month, there has been no real content disputes or edit wars. This article is undeniably much better.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

 * 1) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content ✅
 * All images have appropriate rationales and don't appear to be in question. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)
 * 1) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. ✅
 * All are captioned, and directly relate to commentary. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)

Conclusion
I feel this article as of this revision meets all the good article criteria and should be rated as such. Congratulations on your work! -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)