Talk:David Albala/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

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

Reviewer: Luxtaythe2nd (talk · contribs) 08:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

: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, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|y}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|y}}
3. ::
4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
5. :a (reference section): {{GAList/check|y}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|y}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|y}} d (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|y}}
6. :: The article cites mostly books and academic papers, which I consider reliable sources.
7. It is broad in its coverage.
8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|y}}
9. ::
10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
11. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
12. ::
13. It is stable.
14. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
15. ::
16. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
17. :a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y}}
18. ::
19. Overall:
20. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
21. :: Passed. Only needed one fix and it is done.