Talk:John Parkinson (botanist)/Archive: GA review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

GA review

I've taken on this review, due to other commitments, may not be very speedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. :-) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made one minor revision, checked images and refs, so here goes

Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  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:

Jimfbleak (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks for the Christmas present. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)