Talk:Richmond, Virginia/GA
 | This page 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. |
Good article nomination
This article seems to have stabilized quite a bit and has had a peer review. I've given the article a decent copyedit, fixing up a couple of loose ends, and adding details to the summary section, so I think the next step is to nominate for Good article status. There's still a bit more to do for Featured status, mainly there's still some sections that need photos, but I think it meets the criteria for being a good article presently. Dr. Cash 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
Could be further improved with a few more inline citations, considering the amount of prose. PhoenixTwo 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)