Talk:Karl Marx/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 17:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

OK, lets get cracking.

GA review (see here for criteria)

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:
Yep, this is a great article. Goes to GA right away. I'd recomend it for Featured.

I'm all happy with that. Thank you. Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 17:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on here - is see missing refs all over - dead ones and bare ones (that just the ref problems) - humm think a third party should have a look here. Thank you Rcsprinter for taking the time to do this GA review - however i think there is problams with the article that are lacking in the review.Moxy (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed two dead links. Everything else seems to work, and I see no bare urls. If I missed something, please list it here and be more specific (which link/ref is dead or bare). Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"fact" seems to be overused.SBaker43 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What facts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear, the word "fact". Removed unnecessary "in fact" wording. Left one that was quoted; didn't verify the quote.SBaker43 (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd removed a "fact" from another quotation, SBaker43, but I've restored it. [1] No harm done... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; should have checked them again.SBaker43 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this on hold or something? Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 19:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

Right well, I'll fail this then. I thought it was good, but you've spotted some mistakes. Some days have gone by and it's still in that state. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 15:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What mistakes? Can somebody clearly say what are the problems with the article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the above. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 16:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.