Talk:2015 World Series/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 20:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This meets the GA criteria, so I'll be passing now. It is well written, comprehensive and all of the sources check out fine. I know I haven't left any comments, but I honestly couldn't find any issues to bring up when reading through it. Good work with this JAGUAR 10:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]