Talk:G-spot/GA3
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Arctic Night in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Arctic Night 18:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I'll be taking a look at this article right now and going through a list of problems I find (that can't just be fixed by me). Then, I'll make my overall decision! Arctic Night 18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- This article is very well sourced, so I don't think we'll have any issues with verifiability here.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I really can't fault this article. I know I didn't take too long to reach a decision, but everything looks great - the article is incredibly well-sourced and the prose is excellent. Arctic Night 18:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)