Talk:Dunder Mifflin/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   A minor issue: references should be placed after all punctuation, such as in the infobox.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Format the references so that they include at least the title, URL, publisher, and accessdate.

   This is done. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   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:

   However, I would suggest using the default thumbnail size for all of the images, rather than forcing one.

   This is done now too. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Gary King (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Several references are still missing a publisher.
• "The actual DMI ticker symbol" reference should also use cite web, but you can keep the text preceding the URL.

All done now. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• "on June 4, 2008., the intranet.}}" — an extra }} there?
• References 1 and 14 are missing publishers.

Gary King (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Passing. Gary King (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)