Talk:We Ride/GA1

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

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 00:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  00:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 00:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1a) Absolutely no grammar errors that need correction - excellent job. It is likely not FA-quality, but is more than adequate for a GA.
 * 1b) Meets all criteria as well.
 * 1b) Meets all criteria as well.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Per WP:GACN, all of the above are passed.
 * Per WP:GACN, all of the above are passed.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All two of these are clear.
 * All two of these are clear.


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I believe this is rather fair.
 * I believe this is rather fair.


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Not an issue.
 * Not an issue.


 * 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):
 * I don't see a problem with either of theese.
 * I don't see a problem with either of theese.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, a nice article with no real problems with GA-criteria. Good job!
 * Thanks :)  Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 11:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks :)  Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 11:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)