Talk:Victory Road (2004)/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Wrestlinglover in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Hi, I am reviewing your article for GA. I went through it, copyediting it some. The article seems very good. There was one sentence I did not understand:

  • "Afterward, Jarrett retrieved the championship..."

Mattisse (Talk) 16:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Well written   b (MoS): Follows MoS  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced   b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable   c (OR): No OR  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Sets the context   b (focused): Remains focused on subject  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: NPOV  
  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:  

A good, clear article! Passes GA. Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, it is good to have TNA's first PPV under GA status.--WillC 09:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply