Talk:Malawi/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I fixed a few typos for you.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   A spate of recent vandalism, but it looks like there are no legitimate content disputes.

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):

   Image:Malawi_coa.png tagging is unclear.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Please look into the image above, but the issue is neither confined nor unique to this article, and it stands as a GA even with the coat of arms removed. Pass, however, as an excellent, well-referenced example of summary style. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the review and the quick pass. I'll take a look at the image caption and see if I can find something better. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)