GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer:
Quadell (
talk)
18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Nominator:
User:Gen. Quon
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. | Prose is good. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | All problems resolved. |
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. | The References section is fine. It could have better formatting (spacing, ISBNs), but these are very minor issues. |
![]() |
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). | All problems resolved. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No problems with this. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All problems resolved. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Although I think "Yoda" is given too much coverage compared to other tracks, I don't think this is a big enough problem to disqualify the article from "Good" status. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems here. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No problems here. |
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. | Images and samples are fine. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No problems here. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Congratulations, this passes all criteria. |
Two Hearted River ( paddle / fish) 20:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Many of the problems mentioned above have been fixed, and that's wonderful. There are still a few remaining problems, and I'm not quite comfortable giving this GA status until they are fixed. I'm willing to leave this open a few more days to see if we can nudge this up to GA status. But if it's not ready by the 6th, I'll have to fail the nom (allowing it can be renominated again later, of course, when the issues are resolved). I don't feel comfortable refactoring other people's comments, so I've listed the remaining five issues in one place, below. – Quadell ( talk) 19:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer:
Quadell (
talk)
18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Nominator:
User:Gen. Quon
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. | Prose is good. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | All problems resolved. |
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. | The References section is fine. It could have better formatting (spacing, ISBNs), but these are very minor issues. |
![]() |
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). | All problems resolved. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No problems with this. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All problems resolved. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Although I think "Yoda" is given too much coverage compared to other tracks, I don't think this is a big enough problem to disqualify the article from "Good" status. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems here. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No problems here. |
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. | Images and samples are fine. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No problems here. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Congratulations, this passes all criteria. |
Two Hearted River ( paddle / fish) 20:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Many of the problems mentioned above have been fixed, and that's wonderful. There are still a few remaining problems, and I'm not quite comfortable giving this GA status until they are fixed. I'm willing to leave this open a few more days to see if we can nudge this up to GA status. But if it's not ready by the 6th, I'll have to fail the nom (allowing it can be renominated again later, of course, when the issues are resolved). I don't feel comfortable refactoring other people's comments, so I've listed the remaining five issues in one place, below. – Quadell ( talk) 19:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)