![]() | Point Stephens Light has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Point Stephens Light/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found Jezhotwells (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- References are to Rs, all check out.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Fine
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- OK, I think this adequately meets the WP:GACR, so I am happy to list this. I am sorry that you have had to wait do long. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
Thanks you! --Muhandes (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)