Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There is an un-addressed citation needed tag from November 2009 in the Other results section  Done

   I tagged four dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS  Done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for referencing to be fixed. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   OK the citations issue has been addressed. I am happy for this to keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]