Login
Login

Talk:Maurice Duplessis/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

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

Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 20:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

{{pb}}

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 }}
  3. ::
  4. ::
  5. : b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|y }}
  6. ::
  7. ::
  8. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
  9. : a. (reference section): {{GAList/check|y }}
  10. ::

    1. ::
    2. : b. (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|y }}
    3. ::

      1. ::
      2. : c. (OR): {{GAList/check|y }}
      3. ::
      4. ::
      5. : d. (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|y }}
      6. ::
      7. ::
      8. It is broad in its coverage.
      9. : a. (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y }}
      10. ::

        1. ::
        2. : b. (focused): {{GAList/check|y }}
        3. ::

          1. ::
          2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
          3. : Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y }}
          4. ::
          5. ::
          6. It is stable.
          7. : No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y }}
          8. ::

            1. ::
            2. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
            3. : a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): {{GAList/check|y }}
            4. ::
            5. :: This page has a lot of pictures.
            6. : b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y }}
            7. ::
            8. ::
            9. Overall:
            10. : Pass/fail: {{GAList/check|y }}
            11. ::
            12. ::

            (Criteria marked 14px are unassessed)