Talk:Canadian heraldry/GA2

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status (per your request on my talk page), and I should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • The end of the first paragraph of the State and national section needs a ref.
   • The end of the Cadency paragraph needs a ref.

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:

There are a couple of places where I would like to see references, so I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to address this. Also, technically, I don't think you are supposed to have a peer review open while you have the article nominated for GA. I'm not going to harp on this, but it would be nice to see it wrapped up. Other than that, the article looks very nice, and much closer to GA status than the last time I reviewed it. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done the State section. The cadency bit is standard and uncontroversial heraldic knowledge, and doesn't need a reference. [ roux ] [x] 16:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, everything looks fine, so I'm passing the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!!!!!! [ roux ] [x] 17:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)