Talk:Wind phone/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 00:19, 17 April 2021 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I've made a few copyedits for clarity and MoS points, hopefully you are okay with them.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I looked around a bit but didn't find anything to add to what's here.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I was tempted to say the where visitors can hold one-way conversations with deceased loved ones in the lede should be reworded for clarity, but the by "talking" to him on the phone later makes that clear and I decided it's better the way it is.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I scaled down the Ireland image because it was too big relative to the others.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is a really nice article. I almost always place GA nominations on hold, but with the few changes I made, I believe this meets the requirements and I am passing it right now.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is a really nice article. I almost always place GA nominations on hold, but with the few changes I made, I believe this meets the requirements and I am passing it right now.

Your edits to the article are great. Thank you so much for the review! DanCherek (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)