Talk:Wilhelm Busch/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 17, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Writing style is indeed good enough for GA, though for further quality improvements I'd recommend going for peer review and soliciting input via posts to WikiProject talk pages. Only point I'd bring up is the lede/intro is a little bit short, especially when compared to the German language Wikipedia version.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers broad aspects quite well.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone and matter of fact language and presentation, satisfying NPOV.
 * 5. Article stability? Other than IP vandalism to keep an eye out for, article and article talk page are stable upon inspection going back over one month.
 * 6. Images?: A total of ninteeen (19) images used. Some will need more date info and other fields filled out on their individual image pages for a FAC image review, but all are confirmed as free-use licensed and check out alright for GA status. Please go back through those image pages on Wikimedia Commons and make sure as many fields as possible are filled out on the individual image pages for commons:Template:Information.

Great job overall. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)