Talk:Uppsala Cathedral/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jionpedia (talk · contribs) 18:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Will review it in the next coming days. Regards, --Jionpedia  ✉  18:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Great job, Blofeld. Hardly any flaws. I fixed the minor problems, though.

Final analysis
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. 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:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Don't get it delisted! Thanks, --Jionpedia  ✉  15:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jion, Ipigott deserves most of the credit though..♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)