Contents

Talk:Frank Borman/GA1

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Starting review. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria[edit]

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. Not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation. Not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

So far, so good. Need to read in more depth before commenting further. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All boxes ticked. It needed several minor amendments and there was a bit of inconsistency around Bill/William Anders and the modules but otherwise it's absolutely fine and sails through this review. Definitely a good article. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]