Talk:Rutherfordium/GA3

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations:none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    This is massively improved since my last review. Prose good and complies sufficiently with MoS.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    References appear good, Rs and I assume GF for those which I cannot access.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Thorough without unnecessary detail.
  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):  
    Licensed, tagged and captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Excellent, I have no hesitation in listing this as a GA. congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply