Talk:Fra Mauro formation/GA1

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

Reviewer: Szzuk (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm a physicist so within my remit.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

   MOS compliance is fine, clearly well written with no grammatical errors.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Sources are good but ref 4 contains a bad link.

    Done Ref 4 has been repaired. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope's good, not too broad or too narrow.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes, it's an academic treatment of the subject.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, hard to argue over:

   History is stable and uncontroversial.

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:

   All the images are public domain.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass. Article is good, reference 4 contains a bad link. It would be unfair to fail it just for that but it needs fixing.