Talk:Kate Nash/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Launchballer (talk · contribs) 12:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chchcheckit (talk · contribs) 14:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi again lmao. I am very excited to do this since i feel some parallels between this and a thing i'm working on so :)))) i'll get to this // Chchcheckit (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Broad

• pending

Prose

• pending

References

• pending

Copyvio

• pending

NPOV

• pending

Stable

• pending