Talk:Werner Mölders/GA1

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

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The article is well written. I have fixed any issues I had with grammar and seems to be mostly compliant with the MOS.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is well cited, there appears to be no original research.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is broad in its coverage, without being too broad so as to lose focus.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * The article maintains NPOV, and fairly represents the topic.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * The article appears stable. Most of the recent edits have been undertaken by only a couple of editors.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
 * Images seem to meet the guidelines. Should be no dramas.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:

I have reviewed this article, made any changes I felt necessary and now feel that it is a Good Article. As such I am passing it.

— AustralianRupert (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)