Talk:Mitch Daniels/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Designate (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Everything's sourced and reasonable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Very broad. May need to be rewritten for concision in some places.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- No major disputes raised. The controversial parts look even-handed.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- See #4.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I'm going to pass this as GA quality. Are you going for FA? —Designate (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)