Talk:Arthur Schultz/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There shouldn't be information presented in the lead that is not also presented in the body of the article. I'm refering specifically to the first paragraph of the lead, where it discusses his Navy and JPD service.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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:

   Just one issue with prose/MOS, and once this is taken care of I think the article will be good to go for GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass this article to GA status. Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)