Article(edit |visual edit |history) ·Article talk(edit |history) ·Watch
Reviewer:Dom497 (talk·contribs)00:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GA review – seeWP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is itreasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Quality of article is good.
- B.MoS compliance forlead,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlists:
- Article complies with MoS.
- Is itfactually accurate andverifiable?
- A.References to sources:
- Good.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- References included where necessary.
- C.No original research:
- No original research found.
- Is itbroad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- All major aspects about the topic have been covered.
- B. Focused:
- Article remains focused throughout.
- Is itneutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- No bias found.
- Is itstable?
- Noedit wars, etc:
- Article is stable.
- Does itcontainimages to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images havefair use rationales:
- Images used in the article are all tagged correctly.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, withsuitable captions:
- Images are provided, appropriate, and have suitable captions.
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass!--Dom497 (talk)00:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reference stating a 1961 opening which I have included in the article. Everything else is good.--Dom497 (talk)00:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a very specific reason I included that webpage only as an external link: it's aself-published source, and including it causes the article to fail the GA criteria. I have removed it.Imzadi 1979 →01:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
