Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
to determine domain deputes Is domain disputes meant? Or deputising of domains? Or something else? Y
- I made a few minor copy-edits.[2]
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Sources check out, all are reliable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Thorough and focussed.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- 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):
- On logo used with appropriate tag and rationale.
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- OK, just one query. On Hold for seven days.
- OK, thanks for fixing that. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I meant "domain disputes" and fix it to that. Thanks for the copyedit. Arsenikk (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]