Talk:Novum Instrumentum omne/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A informative article; and well referenced.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- 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:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
The main body of the article provides good deal of information about this historical documents and this is supported by the WP:Lead which provides an Introduction to the main body of the article. The Lead is also intended to provide a concise summary of the main points in the article; and this needs some inprovement. Once that has been done Ii will awward the article the GA-status which it merits. Pyrotec (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
As the lead has now been brought up to standard, I'm happy to award the article GA-status. Congratulations in meeting the necessary standards. Pyrotec (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)