GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Newyorkadam ( talk · contribs) 07:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC) I will review this :) - Newyorkadam ( talk) 07:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Quick-glance comments:
Comments:
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
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. | After fixes, yes! :) |
![]() |
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. | Contains 17 references. |
![]() |
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). | Contains many in-line citations! |
![]() |
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. | I don't see any bias. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Only recent edits (except for one) are from ChrisGualtieri, the Good Article nominator. |
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. | One image in the infobox of a bottle of Baconnaise. Image is from Flickr and released under the Attribution 2.0 Generic license which is allowed on Wikipedia, However, the image is blurry, low-resolution, and small. Try to find another image please :) |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Image is definitely relevant to the topic, it's a photo of a bottle of Baconnaise. Image doesn't have a caption; it doesn't need one, but it certainly can't hurt. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Nice job Chris :) |
Final decision comment: Passed! Nice work Chris :) Thanks for putting up with my strict reviewing :) - Newyorkadam ( talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Newyorkadam ( talk · contribs) 07:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC) I will review this :) - Newyorkadam ( talk) 07:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Quick-glance comments:
Comments:
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
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. | After fixes, yes! :) |
![]() |
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. | Contains 17 references. |
![]() |
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). | Contains many in-line citations! |
![]() |
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. | I don't see any bias. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Only recent edits (except for one) are from ChrisGualtieri, the Good Article nominator. |
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. | One image in the infobox of a bottle of Baconnaise. Image is from Flickr and released under the Attribution 2.0 Generic license which is allowed on Wikipedia, However, the image is blurry, low-resolution, and small. Try to find another image please :) |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Image is definitely relevant to the topic, it's a photo of a bottle of Baconnaise. Image doesn't have a caption; it doesn't need one, but it certainly can't hurt. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Nice job Chris :) |
Final decision comment: Passed! Nice work Chris :) Thanks for putting up with my strict reviewing :) - Newyorkadam ( talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam