Talk:Fort Bayard (Washington, D.C.)/GA1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
GA Review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria, with suggestions for future development. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- I'd be careful with some of the prose: in places it can become a little colloquial and I saw one or two contractions (i.e. didn't) that should be written out in full. In all though, an excellently written article.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation):
b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned):
b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):
c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)