Talk:Under the Pyramids

	Under the Pyramids has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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 reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 10, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels: Short story Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Short story task force. Horror This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I made a number of minor copy-edits. Prose good, structure fine, lead summarises the article adequately.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Article is well referenced, sources are RS, no evidence of OR. I assume good faith for off line sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers the subject in sufficient detail, without unnecessary trivia

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):

   Two images used with suitable rationales and captions

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I can't find fault with this, so am happy to list it. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great! Thanks so much for the review! Canadian Paul 01:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]