Talk:Fostoria Glass Company/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Minecrafter0271 (talk · contribs) 04:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the article and the talk page, and here is what I found

I have found that there are no immediate failures on the article. I have found that the article is clear, well written, understandable, and the layout is acceptable, passing the First Good Article Criteria. I have found that it contains a list of verifiable sources, that the sources are reliable, and that there is no original research or plagiarism, passing the Second Good Article Criteria. I have found that it doesn't go off topic with the exception of notes, and that it is broad, passing the Third Good Article Criteria. I have found that the article is non-bias, and is just plain out facts, passing the Fourth Good Article Criteria. I have found that it is stable, with the last edit at the time of writing this being on 19 December 2019, passing the Fifth Good Article Criteria. I have found that the article is illustrated, with 8 pictures, passing the Sixth Good Article Criteria.

In conclusion, I have found that the article Fostoria Glass Company has passed the Good Article Criteria.

Minecrafter0271, I don't think anyone is going to accept this from an editor with so few article edits. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ian Rose, you tagged an FA thing of theirs earlier. What do you make of this? Drmies (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I can read. I read the criteria, and it is ultimately my choise, since I am the first reviewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minecrafter0271 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]