Talk:Rutherfordium/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations:none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This is massively improved since my last review. Prose good and complies sufficiently with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References appear good, Rs and I assume GF for those which I cannot access.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough without unnecessary detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Licensed, tagged and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Excellent, I have no hesitation in listing this as a GA. congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)