Talk:William Anderson (RAAF officer)/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 03:01, 25 July 2011 (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):
 * 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:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * End note
 * As usual, I'm very happy. How about you leave some flaws in the next few articles, so I can feel worthwhile while reviewing your GANs! Very good writing – can you teach/tutor me how to write?  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 11:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks for reviewing/passing. Re. writing, are you serious, 'cos I think you're a good writer -- I know I make a few changes/suggestions when reviewing your work, but I do that with everyone. Hell, I'd have copyedited Shakespeare if he put something up for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)