Talk:Rødkleiva/GA1

In today's world, Talk:Rødkleiva/GA1 has become a topic of constant interest and debate. Whether it's its impact on society, its historical relevance, or its influence on popular culture, Talk:Rødkleiva/GA1 attracts the attention of people of all ages, genders, and backgrounds. Over the years, Talk:Rødkleiva/GA1 has generated all kinds of opinions, theories and interpretations, becoming a central element in numerous areas. In this article, we will explore different aspects of Talk:Rødkleiva/GA1 and its meaning in the contemporary context. From its origin to its current repercussions, we will take an in-depth look at the importance of Talk:Rødkleiva/GA1 in our world today.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 23:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


Initial review

I have completed my initial review, and I make a few changes here and there to clarify a few things and do some copy editing. I believe most everything is in order; however, there is one sentence in the last section that needs a citation. The sentence giving figures on the number of tickets sold and the number of attendees needs to be sourced. I'll return to pass the article once that issue has been dealt with. I'll place the article on hold until then. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 23:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sacrificing your precious time to review the article. As for the sentence in question, it and the following sentence use the same reference (Vaage p. 123). Except for exceptionally contentious material and quotes, I will not repeat the same reference in succession. Arsenikk (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
That fine. --Tea with toast (話) 01:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Well done! --Tea with toast (話) 01:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia