Talk:12–6 elbow/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:12-6 elbow/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:12-6 elbow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  14:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

:GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.
2. :a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): {{GAList/check|y}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|}}
3. ::Although I would recommend a small expansion of the lead, it should be fine as it is
4. ::"Such bans were justified as being for medical and safety reasons" - 'as being' seems redundant
5. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
6. :a (reference section): {{GAList/check|y}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|?}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|y}}
7. ::No original research found.
8. It is broad in its coverage.
9. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|y}}
10. ::
11. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
12. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
13. ::
14. It is stable.
15. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
16. ::
17. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
18. :a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|}}
19. ::
20. Overall:
21. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
22. ::

I couldn't find anything major enough to put this on hold, so I'll pass this now. It is well written and quite comprehensive for the matter. Good work {{icon|GA}} JAGUAR  19:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)