Talk:Muntz Street

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Muntz Street has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 4, 2009 Peer review Reviewed February 20, 2009 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:Footballfootball articles	WikiProject Football	(Rated GA-Class, Low-importance)
	English football portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the England task force (marked as Low-importance).

West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles	WikiProject West Midlands	(Rated GA-Class, Low-importance)
	v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Muntz Street/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I made a minor copyedit; otherwise all good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)