Talk:Ursula and Sabina Eriksson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AGK [•] 22:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Concisely written; flows well. Nice summary of all the events, leaving no "unanswered questions" (as is quite common with articles about events). I noticed a few punctuation irregularities when reviewing, which I fixed; I'm guessing that's just a small eccentricity of the writing of the primary author :P.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Meets WP:V; no obvious factual errors. Cites a variety of reliable sourced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers all aspects of the subject matter, in adequate depth.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Satisfies WP:NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No ongoing edit wars or substantial expansion of the article. Incident is not a current one.

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):

   No images bar the map, but that is understandable. The map, by the by, is very nice, and adds a lot to the article overall.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Happy to grant this article GA status! AGK [•] 22:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)