Talk:Vlaams Blok/GA1

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) 00:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

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

Disambiguations: Two found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Linkrot: Two found and repaired.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 6 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):  
    The article is reasonably well written. I made a number of copy-edits, mostly for grammar.[3]
    Complies sufficiently with MoS.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Well referenced, sources appear RS, assume good faith for off-line sources, no evidence of OR.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Sufficient detail without excessive minutiae
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    Stable, no edit warring
  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):  
    Suitable licensing, FUR and captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    I find that this article complies sufficiently with the good article criteria to be listed. The prose could be improved, but it it "reasonably well written". Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply