Talk:Christopher Tanev/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

General

References good
Images good
NPOV good
Spotcheck revealed no issue with close paraphrasing

Another fine Canuck player article. The only concerns I had were very minor - a couple missing words and three dead links - both of which I fixed myself. I can see no reason not to pass this as a GA. Congrats! Reso lute 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]