Jump to content

Talk:Into the Crevasse/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: Matthew R Dunn (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Sources aplenty!
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Most sources check out fine, but ref numbers 5 through 8 are from the Internet Movie Database, which is a user-generated website; I'm a bit uncomforable with this, considering that the IMDb isn't considered reliable from my expierience, any reason why they should be accepted?
    IMDb cannot be used as a source to back up any potentially contentious material about living persons (BLPs), the trivia and goofs sections that are based on user submissions, etc., but I removed them. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Only one copyrighted image; has the apporpriate tags.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    So far, nice work. Just need one thing sorted out really, then hopefully, I'll pass it. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, now that the issue has been addressed, I can now pass the article. Good job! -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reviewing the article. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]