Talk:Bleeding Through/GA2

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Jezhotwells

Checking against GA criteria

edit
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):  
    b (MoS):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    • Two dead links and two redirects found using this tool. Ref #7 does not support the statement; other live references are OK.
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    • Ref #1 [2] does not qualify as RS; ref #6 [3] is a fan contributed site, not RS; Appear fairly reliable. It would be good to find some more mainstream sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
    c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    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:  
    • Please check out the references as per above, on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
    OK, I am happy to confirm this article's GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply