Talk:Robinson's Arch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay in getting to this point. Pyrotec (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A well-reference, well-illustrated article on a historical/archaeological topic.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well-referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well-referenced.

   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:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on reaching this standard. Pyrotec (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

End of August seems to be slow everywhere, so you've been very prompt in comparison. Thank you for taking the time to review it and make the correction. • Astynax ^talk 21:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)