Talk:Green Day/GA3

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Green Day/GA3|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Green Day/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Strike Eagle (talk · contribs) 06:06, 31 May 2012 (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): {{GAList/check|aye}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|aye}}
3. ::
4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
5. :a (references): {{GAList/check|aye}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|aye}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|aye}}
6. It is broad in its coverage.
7. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|yes}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|aye}}
8. :: Sections other than History might need some additional info
9. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
10. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|aye}}
11. ::
12. It is stable.
13. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|aye}}
14. ::
15. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
16. :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|aye}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|aye}}
17. ::
18. Overall:
19. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|Aye}}
20. ::Good to go