Talk:Windows 2.1/GA1

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

Reviewer: GeoffreyT2000 (talk · contribs) 03:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I will check the criteria now. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2022 (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):
 * 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):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I think that cybernetnews.com is not a reliable source. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've removed that one. Is there anything else that has to be fixed? Vacant0 (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked all the remaining sources, and I could not find any unreliable ones. So, I will make this article a GA pass now. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Vacant0 (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)