Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Mitch Daniels/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Designate (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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):
    I fixed some minor things. Easily above GA quality. This sentence: "Daniels has been honored by the Arab-American Institute with the 2011 Najeeb Halaby Award for Public Service." seems very out-of-place to me, though.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Everything's sourced and reasonable.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Very broad. May need to be rewritten for concision in some places.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No major disputes raised. The controversial parts look even-handed.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    See #4.
  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):
    I think the infobox image should have a caption as it's a little dated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I'm going to pass this as GA quality. Are you going for FA? —Designate (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]