Talk:2001 Avjet Gulfstream III crash/GA2
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Crum375 in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Initial comments
editThe problems with lack of in-line citations in some sections, which led to GA-status being withdrawn at WP:GAR appear to have been addressed. I will now carry out a more detailed review of this article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Overall summary
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Yes
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Yes. However, Ref 1, which is invoked 12 times, is a 41 page PDF file. A page number, or pages numbers, aught to be provided each time this reference is called. This might mean moving the reference as a whole into, say, a source page and then grouping the in-line citations into "clusters" of the same page or range of pages, such as NSTB pages 2-3, NSTB pages 25-27, etc.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the GA renewal and your effort. Crum375 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)