Talk:Twin Spica/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria

• Sources ✓ Pass
• Neutral ✓ Pass
• No outstanding cleanup tags ✓ Pass
• Stable ✓ Pass
• Not related to a current event ✓ Pass

Checklist: A good article is...

Well-written

1. The prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct ✓ Pass

   No major grammar problems found --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. ✓ Pass

   Looks like it is in compliance with WP:MOS-AM --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Factually accurate and verifiable

1. It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout ✓ Pass

   Practically everything is attributed to a reliable source. No problems here --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

2. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines ✓ Pass

   Yes --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

3. it contains no original research. ✓ Pass

   None as far as I can tell --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Broad in its coverage

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic ✓ Pass

   It addresses each area of coverage required by the MOS and covers each in detail. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail ✓ Pass

   Maintains a real-world frame and stays on topic throughout the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Neutral

• Tt represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. ✓ Pass

Not as much of an issue with fiction articles, but no it is not written from a fan POV. The tone is appropriate too. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Stable

• it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. ✓ Pass

  While major work on this article occured this month, there has been no real content disputes or edit wars. This article is undeniably much better. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content ✓ Pass

   All images have appropriate rationales and don't appear to be in question. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. ✓ Pass

   All are captioned, and directly relate to commentary. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Conclusion

I feel this article as of this revision meets all the good article criteria and should be rated as such. Congratulations on your work! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)