Talk:Rebbie Jackson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gbern3 (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Passed

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   I was concerned when I saw the Google links but upon looking at them I realized it was just like Google Books but for newspapers.

   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:

   Good job. My only suggestion is that you add WP:PDATA to this article. It's a relatively new initiative in Wikipedia. It's understandable if you haven't heard of it before. It's for identifying and categorizing articles. The guidelines section is where the actual code is. It's invisible in the sense that it won't affect how the page looks because the general public can't see it.