Talk:Boeing 757/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nathan2055 (talk • contribs • count) 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The chart

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is great!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Respects manual of style.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article is sourced great!
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The inline citations work great.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research was found.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It was a great read, a wonderful article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No unnecessary detail can be found.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I didn't see any bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images captioned correctly.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All of the images are retrieved from the Commons.
	7. Overall assessment.	It was a great read! Keep at it, I bet you'll get FA status soon!

On behalf of the editors who have contributed to improve this article, I thank you for your review and your comments. The FA suggestion is also something that will be taken under consideration. Thanks again! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)