Talk:Vlaams Blok/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Two found and fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: Two found and repaired. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article is reasonably well written. I made a number of copy-edits, mostly for grammar.
 * Complies sufficiently with MoS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Well referenced, sources appear RS, assume good faith for off-line sources, no evidence of OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Sufficient detail without excessive minutiae
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable, no edit warring
 * 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):
 * Suitable licensing, FUR and captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I find that this article complies sufficiently with the good article criteria to be listed. The prose could be improved, but it it "reasonably well written". Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)