GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 18:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
That's all I have time for at the moment. I will continue later. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I have read the article through to the end now. In general, the prose is quite acceptable. I will look at the other GA criteria later. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:57, 27 April 2012 (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. | See comments above. Prose now satisfactory. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Layout and section headings are suitable. |
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. | See 2b. |
![]() |
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). | Some of the references are bare urls, wrongly formatted, incomplete, dead links or in other ways unsatisfactory. These include links currently numbered: 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 21, 22, 25, 26, 38, 39, 40, 42, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58.
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | It covers the topic adequately. |
![]() |
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. | There is little change in the article from day to day apart from the nominator's improvements. |
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. | Two images have suitable licenses and two have appropriate "Fair use" rationales, showing the company logo and a poster in a way that text could not. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are appropriate and are properly captioned. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Hi, I have made some edits to this article in the past, so probably can't be too involved in the review. There are a number of issues with references that I have previously raised. I'm not sure whether these need fixing for GA. However, for completeness I'll put them on the record again:
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 18:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
That's all I have time for at the moment. I will continue later. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I have read the article through to the end now. In general, the prose is quite acceptable. I will look at the other GA criteria later. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:57, 27 April 2012 (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. | See comments above. Prose now satisfactory. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Layout and section headings are suitable. |
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. | See 2b. |
![]() |
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). | Some of the references are bare urls, wrongly formatted, incomplete, dead links or in other ways unsatisfactory. These include links currently numbered: 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 21, 22, 25, 26, 38, 39, 40, 42, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58.
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | It covers the topic adequately. |
![]() |
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. | There is little change in the article from day to day apart from the nominator's improvements. |
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. | Two images have suitable licenses and two have appropriate "Fair use" rationales, showing the company logo and a poster in a way that text could not. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are appropriate and are properly captioned. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Hi, I have made some edits to this article in the past, so probably can't be too involved in the review. There are a number of issues with references that I have previously raised. I'm not sure whether these need fixing for GA. However, for completeness I'll put them on the record again: