Talk:Sagara Sanosuke/GA3

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reviewing this article again. I have read it through and the prose is immensely improved since my first review. The article is very good now. All the problems seem to have been remedied.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): The prose is reasonably good and the writing is clear. b (MoS): There are no Obvious MoS errors

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Article is well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): The sources are reliable

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): It sets the context for the article subject b (focused): Well focused on the subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral in viewpoint.

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:

In my view this article is immensely improved and now passes GA criteria. Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]