Talk:.sj/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Arsenikk in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    I made a few minor copy-edits.[1]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    references check out, I assume good faith for those where my Norwegian isn't up to scratch.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    It says all that needs to be said
  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:  
    OK, short and sweet. I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Arsenikk (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply