GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Willbb234 ( talk · contribs) 11:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll take up this review.
Willbb234
Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies)
11:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
More to come, but I'm a little busy at the moment so later. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 12:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
More to come, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 13:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The article is of good quality so there wasn't many mistakes to point out. I have a couple of comments:
Other than that, I think the article can get no better, so I'll pass it for GA once the comments are addressed. Kind regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 11:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Any issues have been addressed. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The MOS has been adhered to. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Could do with some more sources, but the sources that there are are well attributed. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | References checked and reliable |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Checked with Earwig's detector and no copyvio found |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Neutral |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | no edit wars |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Checked and fine |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Could do with some more images, but the ones there are are relevant and have suitable captions. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Well done and very well deserved. Happy editing. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Willbb234 ( talk · contribs) 11:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll take up this review.
Willbb234
Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies)
11:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
More to come, but I'm a little busy at the moment so later. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 12:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
More to come, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 13:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The article is of good quality so there wasn't many mistakes to point out. I have a couple of comments:
Other than that, I think the article can get no better, so I'll pass it for GA once the comments are addressed. Kind regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 11:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Any issues have been addressed. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The MOS has been adhered to. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Could do with some more sources, but the sources that there are are well attributed. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | References checked and reliable |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Checked with Earwig's detector and no copyvio found |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Neutral |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | no edit wars |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Checked and fine |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Could do with some more images, but the ones there are are relevant and have suitable captions. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Well done and very well deserved. Happy editing. |