GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Mr rnddude ( talk · contribs) 14:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello there, I am going to be taking a look at reviewing this article for GA. I hope to have a full review up for you by tomorrow.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
14:11, 29 July 2016 (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. | To be honest, this is the first article I have come across that I didn't note any prose issues, excellent work. I have dealt with the Duplinks, of which there were many, and there are no current Dabs. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The article is structured well, written nicely in the summary style and I didn't find any issues with article's setup overall. | |
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. | There are a list of sources in the article and they are formatted properly. | |
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | There doesn't appear to be any OR, all of the work is cited to a reliable source (with a single exception). I will comment on this further if I come across anything. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig's copyvio detector finds it unlikely that there are copyright violations within the article with a confidence of 9.1%. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Definitely, makes good use of the summary style and addressing the key issues; life, career and death. Further additions have been made to expand the article mildly but these are perfectly fine. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article is quite clearly focused on the subject. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The presentation of the article is free from POV issues and the tone is neutral throughout. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article is most definitely stable, no disputes are outstanding on the article talk page. | |
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All of the images are appropriate to the article,
| |
7. Overall assessment. | The existing issues have now been resolved. The article is well-presented in the summary style and well sourced and referenced. |
I'll be using the above table for my review, expect to find my comments on the article within the boxes that relate to the issue. Mr rnddude ( talk) 14:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Borsoka, I am more or less finished with reviewing this article for the time being. Excellent work so far, this article is very close to GA. I have this page on my watchlist so feel free to notify me if you need anything. Mr rnddude ( talk) 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Mr rnddude ( talk · contribs) 14:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello there, I am going to be taking a look at reviewing this article for GA. I hope to have a full review up for you by tomorrow.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
14:11, 29 July 2016 (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. | To be honest, this is the first article I have come across that I didn't note any prose issues, excellent work. I have dealt with the Duplinks, of which there were many, and there are no current Dabs. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The article is structured well, written nicely in the summary style and I didn't find any issues with article's setup overall. | |
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. | There are a list of sources in the article and they are formatted properly. | |
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | There doesn't appear to be any OR, all of the work is cited to a reliable source (with a single exception). I will comment on this further if I come across anything. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig's copyvio detector finds it unlikely that there are copyright violations within the article with a confidence of 9.1%. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Definitely, makes good use of the summary style and addressing the key issues; life, career and death. Further additions have been made to expand the article mildly but these are perfectly fine. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article is quite clearly focused on the subject. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The presentation of the article is free from POV issues and the tone is neutral throughout. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article is most definitely stable, no disputes are outstanding on the article talk page. | |
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All of the images are appropriate to the article,
| |
7. Overall assessment. | The existing issues have now been resolved. The article is well-presented in the summary style and well sourced and referenced. |
I'll be using the above table for my review, expect to find my comments on the article within the boxes that relate to the issue. Mr rnddude ( talk) 14:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Borsoka, I am more or less finished with reviewing this article for the time being. Excellent work so far, this article is very close to GA. I have this page on my watchlist so feel free to notify me if you need anything. Mr rnddude ( talk) 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)