Talk:A Short History of Progress/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 20, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I like the writing style, it is readable and comprehensive, as well as succinct and deliberate. The final quote is a tad bit too large in the Synopsis sect, would suggest trimming that down in size.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. I would suggest moving to a Notes/References formatting style.

3. Broad in coverage?: The only thing I would point out is the small Film sect, this could be expanded a bit more to include more details in its production, and reception.

4. Neutral point of view?: Matter-of-fact and neutral tone, yes.

5. Article stability? Upon inspection of talk page and edit history of article, no major issues.

6. Images?: One image used, fair use rationale on image page.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time and interest to review. maclean (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]