Talk:What Was Missing/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 20:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * No problems.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Ok.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Ok.
 * 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):
 * Ok.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * Ok.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'll pass it since I couldn't find any major issue that I couldn't correct by myself. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)