GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Crisco 1492 ( talk · contribs) 12:20, 6 June 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. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Good |
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. | Good |
![]() |
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). | Good |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Good |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Good |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Good |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Good |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Nothing but constructive edits (and snarky edit summaries) |
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. | See below |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good, I think |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pending |
The FUR for File:Clarence 13X.jpg needs to be beefed up. I think the one I use at File:Oerip Soemohardjo.jpg is nice and strong. Also, source link is not working for me. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Not my position to comment but has anyone looked into Michael Muhammad Knight? An obscure character who has written much of his own wiki page yet here he has been sourced 77 out of 99 times, particularly in reference to specific inflammatory statements. Using the same source for roughly 77% of all the information here seems unnecessary? Further more, MMK could be described as a controversial provocateur to say the least taking part in deliberate publicity stunts. It would also appear that his study of the 5% nation would be one of the only non-fiction books he
has written. Perhaps his claims are true but every single one should come with an appropriate disclaimer.
86.7.160.101 (
talk)
12:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Crisco 1492 ( talk · contribs) 12:20, 6 June 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. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Good |
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. | Good |
![]() |
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). | Good |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Good |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Good |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Good |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Good |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Nothing but constructive edits (and snarky edit summaries) |
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. | See below |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good, I think |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pending |
The FUR for File:Clarence 13X.jpg needs to be beefed up. I think the one I use at File:Oerip Soemohardjo.jpg is nice and strong. Also, source link is not working for me. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Not my position to comment but has anyone looked into Michael Muhammad Knight? An obscure character who has written much of his own wiki page yet here he has been sourced 77 out of 99 times, particularly in reference to specific inflammatory statements. Using the same source for roughly 77% of all the information here seems unnecessary? Further more, MMK could be described as a controversial provocateur to say the least taking part in deliberate publicity stunts. It would also appear that his study of the 5% nation would be one of the only non-fiction books he
has written. Perhaps his claims are true but every single one should come with an appropriate disclaimer.
86.7.160.101 (
talk)
12:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)