Talk:Ursula and Sabina Eriksson/GA1

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

Reviewer: AGK  [&bull; ] 22:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Concisely written; flows well. Nice summary of all the events, leaving no "unanswered questions" (as is quite common with articles about events). I noticed a few punctuation irregularities when reviewing, which I fixed; I'm guessing that's just a small eccentricity of the writing of the primary author :P.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Meets WP:V; no obvious factual errors. Cites a variety of reliable sourced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Covers all aspects of the subject matter, in adequate depth.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Satisfies WP:NPOV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No ongoing edit wars or substantial expansion of the article. Incident is not a current one.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * No images bar the map, but that is understandable. The map, by the by, is very nice, and adds a lot to the article overall.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Happy to grant this article GA status! AGK  [&bull; ] 22:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)