Talk:Thommy Berggren/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Greatuser (talk · contribs) 07:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I have reviewed some parts and i have found too many issues from only some parts, and it does not meet the criteria. Here are some points i have added below

1. for having starred in.. it is not a meaningful sentence
2. Red links need to be removed

   Red links do not need to be removed from anything. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

3. Ref 08, e.g., these refs need publishers, accessdates if appropriate, author names, publication dates etc if appropriate... not just a website and/or names.
4. Article lakes of Verifiability, see WP:V
5. For each point Reference(s) need to be provided, so that it can be proved it's whether true or false
6. Also there contains dead link, which goes against WP:V

and there are many other issues, I have not looked through the whole page yet. A Great User ✉ ✉ 07:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Review list

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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: