Talk:Halvdan Koht/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Oakley77 (talk · contribs) 15:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Great here	✓ Pass
(b) (MoS)	As is here...	✓ Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Yes	✓ Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Not enough	'
(c) (original research)	Surefire pass	✓ Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	covered greatly	✓ Pass
(b) (focused)	Semi-focused, needs some directional change	'

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Yes	✓ Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Stable indeed	✓ Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Yes, but there is more images needed	✗ Fail
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	pass	✓ Pass

Result

Result	Notes
✗ Fail	Just not up to snuff here, too bad.

Discussion

I will be reviewing this for a bit, but during that time, please feel free to comment and help make this article a GA article. I also will be completing the review at intervals, so if you see the review half-done, be aware it will be completed soon. Thanks for the comments and input! I will also try to make this review as concise and clear as possible! Thanks!Oakley77 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually going to provide things to fix on this one, or will it be an auto-pass without noting anything like the rest of your reviews? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)