Talk:Fulla
Add topicLatest comment: 17 years ago by Bloodofox in topic GA Review
 | Fulla has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
[edit]- This review is transcluded from Talk:Fulla/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Congratulations, the article meets all the GA criteria. Arsenikk (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Whoa, I seemed to have missed this review. Sorry about that - thanks for the review! :bloodofox: (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)