Login
Login

Talk:Sacred Cod/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

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

Reviewer: Vaibhavgupta1989 (talk · contribs) 11:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

=GA Review=

Hello! Please remove red links from the article. Looks like well-written and well-structured article. Detailed analysis coming up next week. All the best! Vaibhavgupta1989 (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

:Hi. thanks for committing to review this article. According to the linking section in the manual of style red links are absolutely fine in an article as long as there is a real chance the article will be created in the future and that the future article is significant to the article at hand. The one redlink I have, the Plymouth Land Company fulfills these criteria.--Found5dollar (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

::Hi, Needed your comment for the red links. I wanted to make sure that it wasn't a dead link or a wrongly put up link.Vaibhavgupta1989 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  2. :A. Prose quality: {{GAList/check|y}}
  3. :: Quality of article is good.
  4. :B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: {{GAList/check|y}}
  5. :: MoS compliant.
  6. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
  7. :A. References to sources: {{GAList/check|y}}
  8. :: This section is good.
  9. :B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: {{GAList/check|y}}
  10. :: Each statement has at least one reliable reference.
  11. :C. No original research: {{GAList/check|y}}
  12. :: No original research found.
  13. Is it broad in its coverage?
  14. :A. Major aspects: {{GAList/check|y}}
  15. :: All major aspects of the topic are covered.
  16. :B. Focused: {{GAList/check|y}}
  17. :: Article remains focused on the topic throughout.
  18. Is it neutral?
  19. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
  20. :: No bias found.
  21. Is it stable?
  22. : No edit wars, etc: {{GAList/check|y}}
  23. :: Article is stable.
  24. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
  25. :A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: {{GAList/check|y}}
  26. :: No problem with images
  27. :B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: {{GAList/check|y}}
  28. :: Appropriate Images provided
  29. Overall:
  30. :Pass or Fail: Pass 17 June 2012
  31. ::Listing it under Arts and architecture Section

=Comments=

Well written article. Good Job.Vaibhavgupta1989 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)