Article (edit | visual edit | history ) · Article talk (edit | history ) · Watch
Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs ) 15:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC) [ reply ]
If I'm taking on the main article, it makes sense that I'd continue with a review of this sub-article as well. I'll get comments to you on this after I'm finished there. CR 4ZE (t • c ) 15:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC) [ reply ]
Thanks, CR4ZE ! Are you still able to take this one on? – Rhain ☔ 23:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] This might be time to get a second opinion since the original nominator has not edited since December. GamerPro64 17:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]
I'll take over from here on out. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions ) 07:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)Here are my thoughts.
It is reasonably well written .
a (prose, spelling, and grammar) : b (MoS for lead , layout , word choice , fiction , and lists ) :
It is factually accurate and verifiable .
a (reference section ) : b (citations to reliable sources ) : c (OR ) : d (copyvio and plagiarism ) :
It is broad in its coverage .
a (major aspects ) : b (focused ) :
It follows the neutral point of view policy .
Fair representation without bias :
It is stable .
No edit wars, etc. :
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales ) : b (appropriate use with suitable captions ) :
Overall :
Pass/Fail :
I think it looks good to me. It's a pass. Good work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions ) 06:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]