Talk:2010 Shanghai fire/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AGK [•] 15:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Concisely written; flows well.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Meets WP:V; no obvious factual errors or content of questionable accuracy.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers all aspects of the subject matter in adequate depth.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Satisfies WP:NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No ongoing edit wars or substantial expansion of the article. Incident is not a current one and is not rapidly unfolding.

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):

   Sensible and engaging use of images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Happy to grant this article Good Article status. AGK [•] 15:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)