![]() | 2012 Hawaii Bowl has been listed as one of the
Sports and recreation 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: May 29, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 22:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Go Phightins, I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Sorry you had to wait so long for a review. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 22:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Overall this looks solid and ripe for promotion, though there are some picky issues that will need to be addressed (below). I've also made some tweaks as I worked through the article; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. And sorry again that it took me a day longer than planned to get to this. I appreciate your patience with the delay. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me know your thoughts on the above, and thanks again for your work on this and sports articles generally. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:24, 29 May 2013 (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. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
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. | |
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
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. | N/A |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | N/A |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
![]() | 2012 Hawaii Bowl has been listed as one of the
Sports and recreation 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: May 29, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 22:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Go Phightins, I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Sorry you had to wait so long for a review. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 22:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Overall this looks solid and ripe for promotion, though there are some picky issues that will need to be addressed (below). I've also made some tweaks as I worked through the article; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. And sorry again that it took me a day longer than planned to get to this. I appreciate your patience with the delay. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me know your thoughts on the above, and thanks again for your work on this and sports articles generally. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:24, 29 May 2013 (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. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
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. | |
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
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. | N/A |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | N/A |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |