Jump to content

Talk:We Ride/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 00:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article. Toa Nidhiki05 00:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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):
  • 1a) Absolutely no grammar errors that need correction - excellent job. It is likely not FA-quality, but is more than adequate for a GA.
  • 1b) Meets all criteria as well.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • Per WP:GACN, all of the above are passed.
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • All two of these are clear.
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  • I believe this is rather fair.
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  • Not an issue.
  1. 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):
  • I don't see a problem with either of theese.
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • Overall, a nice article with no real problems with GA-criteria. Good job!