Talk:William Anderson (RAAF officer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

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.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

End note

• As usual, I'm very happy. How about you leave some flaws in the next few articles, so I can feel worthwhile while reviewing your GANs! Very good writing – can you teach/tutor me how to write? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Tks for reviewing/passing. Re. writing, are you serious, 'cos I think you're a good writer -- I know I make a few changes/suggestions when reviewing your work, but I do that with everyone. Hell, I'd have copyedited Shakespeare if he put something up for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)