GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 15:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basic stuff and comments

[edit]

Progress

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Thank you so much for your review of the page. I really appreciate the feedback and comments. I've made changes to the page in response to them so do let me know if anything looks amiss and if I need to make any other changes. Again, thank you for the time you put into this! Rianahen (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Sorry about that! I've been away for a bit but will be on top of the page from now on. Rianahen (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Yeay! Noted and done! Thank you! Rianahen (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]