Talk:Joseph Staten/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Just a reminder to remain consistent on the usage in dashes (see my revision here. Either stay with all endashes with spaces or all emdashes without spaces (when at all possible, that is).

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Very well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Short but very sweet article. Extremely well-written and reliably referenced. Of course, what else is expected from such an outstanding editor of GAs and FAs. MuZemike 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)