Talk:Apollo 17/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• One dab link: "electromagnetic"
• Looks good. For a FAC article, there are a number of paragraphs that are too short and snappy, and some that could be expanded. No problem for GA though.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. The link in question has been dabbed. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)