GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer:
Seabuckthorn (
talk ·
contribs)
23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator:
Prism
△
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly.
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
Check for
WP:LEAD:
|
![]() Check for
WP:LAYOUT:
|
![]() Check for
WP:WTW:
Check for
WP:MOSFICT:
|
![]()
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
![]() Check for
WP:RS:
|
![]() Check for inline citations
WP:MINREF:
|
![]()
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a.
Major aspects:
![]() |
---|
![]()
|
b.
Focused:
![]() |
---|
![]()
|
4: Neutral
![]() 4. Fair representation without bias:
|
5: Stable: No
edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license) (Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 License)
Images:
![]() |
---|
![]() 6: Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
6: Images are provided if possible and are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
|
I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article:
Check for clarity, flow and neutrality: (I suggest you reword the following. Please feel free to disagree.)
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. All the best,
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
23:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I'm sorry for the delay. I recently reviewed
Mom & Me & Mom. Can you write Critical reception section on these lines? All the best,
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Prism, I need your help in honing my assessment skills. So if you don't mind, I'd like to request you to leave your candid feedback about my reviews which would help me improve as a reviewer. Thank you for your time! -- Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Promoting the article to GA status.
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer:
Seabuckthorn (
talk ·
contribs)
23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator:
Prism
△
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly.
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
Check for
WP:LEAD:
|
![]() Check for
WP:LAYOUT:
|
![]() Check for
WP:WTW:
Check for
WP:MOSFICT:
|
![]()
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
![]() Check for
WP:RS:
|
![]() Check for inline citations
WP:MINREF:
|
![]()
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a.
Major aspects:
![]() |
---|
![]()
|
b.
Focused:
![]() |
---|
![]()
|
4: Neutral
![]() 4. Fair representation without bias:
|
5: Stable: No
edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license) (Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 License)
Images:
![]() |
---|
![]() 6: Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
6: Images are provided if possible and are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
|
I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article:
Check for clarity, flow and neutrality: (I suggest you reword the following. Please feel free to disagree.)
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. All the best,
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
23:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I'm sorry for the delay. I recently reviewed
Mom & Me & Mom. Can you write Critical reception section on these lines? All the best,
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Prism, I need your help in honing my assessment skills. So if you don't mind, I'd like to request you to leave your candid feedback about my reviews which would help me improve as a reviewer. Thank you for your time! -- Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Promoting the article to GA status.
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)