GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Sjones23 ( talk · contribs) 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article momentarily, so bear with me while I go through the article. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
All right. Here's what I think of the sources:
I will be expanding on this as I go along. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Undergoing a thorough review of the GA criteria. This is how the article, as of May 12, 2013 stacks up to the six good article criteria:
Please address these matters here as well. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I've now close-read the article three times (once yesterday and twice today), so I think that the prose is about as good as I can make it. Two general remarks:
Then, four specific remarks regarding sentences that I found confusing and didn't know how to fix:
That's all I've got for you to look at; the rest of the prose looks good to me. AmericanLemming ( talk) 15:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I've taken out "clean line" and left the second two sentences alone, as you recommended. For the last one, you can decide whether or not to put "highly" back into the lead. I'm pretty new to this whole editing business, so I don't necessarily have the best feel for how things should be said. If you were to put it back in, I guess I would feel more comfortable if the phrase was in quotations marks. But you probably have a better idea of what you're doing than I do, so you can do as you like.
And with that, my copy-edit is finished. AmericanLemming ( talk) 18:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
All right. Taking a look at the article, I think it should definitely pass as a Good Article per the GA criteria. Nice work, everyone! Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Sjones23 ( talk · contribs) 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article momentarily, so bear with me while I go through the article. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
All right. Here's what I think of the sources:
I will be expanding on this as I go along. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Undergoing a thorough review of the GA criteria. This is how the article, as of May 12, 2013 stacks up to the six good article criteria:
Please address these matters here as well. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I've now close-read the article three times (once yesterday and twice today), so I think that the prose is about as good as I can make it. Two general remarks:
Then, four specific remarks regarding sentences that I found confusing and didn't know how to fix:
That's all I've got for you to look at; the rest of the prose looks good to me. AmericanLemming ( talk) 15:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I've taken out "clean line" and left the second two sentences alone, as you recommended. For the last one, you can decide whether or not to put "highly" back into the lead. I'm pretty new to this whole editing business, so I don't necessarily have the best feel for how things should be said. If you were to put it back in, I guess I would feel more comfortable if the phrase was in quotations marks. But you probably have a better idea of what you're doing than I do, so you can do as you like.
And with that, my copy-edit is finished. AmericanLemming ( talk) 18:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
All right. Taking a look at the article, I think it should definitely pass as a Good Article per the GA criteria. Nice work, everyone! Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)