Talk:Center for Indoor Air Research

Center for Indoor Air Research received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Center for Indoor Air Research has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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.
Review: December 6, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Center for Indoor Air Research/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No original research found.
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I am promoting this article on the basis that it meets the first, second and third criterion. It is well written, researched, and broad for the subject matter. I couldn't find any issues with this one, so I'll pass it. JAGUAR 22:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]