From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article (
|
visual edit |
history ) ·
Article talk (
|
history ) ·
Watch
Reviewer:
AnonymousPurpose (
talk ·
contribs )
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
With respect to the good article criteria, I believe this article has an amazing handling on all of it's requirements.
It is reasonably well written .
a (prose, spelling, and grammar) : b (
MoS for
lead ,
layout ,
word choice ,
fiction , and
lists ) :
Awesome work on the structure and grammar, it helps hold the whole article together!
It is factually accurate and
verifiable .
a (
reference section ) : b (citations to
reliable sources ) : c (
OR ) : d (
copyvio and
plagiarism ) :
Great reference section, very well versed from all aspects of the situation. Along with the information being reliable it is also verifiable quite easily.
It is broad in its coverage .
a (
major aspects ) : b (
focused ) :
The editors of this article did a great job elaborating on all topics to have the best interest possible.
It follows the
neutral point of view policy .
Fair representation without bias :
I deeply appreciate the attention to detail to include politics in this but not let it effect the argument and where the article stands.
It is stable .
No edit wars, etc. :
From what I've seen, almost all of the work done was completely organized and efficient.
It is illustrated by
images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have
non-free use rationales ) : b (
appropriate use with
suitable captions ) :
All of the images and media used is properly captioned and looks to be sourced properly.
Overall :
Pass/Fail :
Amazing work! So happy to see such a quality article on Wikipedia that fairly covers everything.
07:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)