The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Harrias ( talk · contribs) 17:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- 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);
- it contains no original research; and
- it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
I'm going to stop this review for the moment to give you time to work on the sourcing issues raised above. Please check through every single source in the article to ensure that all facts presented in the article are present in the source material. Once you're happy, ping me, and I'll carry out further spotchecks. I'll stick the nomination on hold for the time being. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Beyond these two, the rest of the sourcing looks fine.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
1. Well-written:
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
(roughly equivalent to ${{inflation|US|0.1|1950|r=2}}{{nbsp}}million in {{Inflation/year|US}})
to give "..that generated over $100,000 (roughly equivalent to $1.27 million in 2023) in revenue.." for context.3. Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- 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.
@ Gonzo fan2007: That's a wrap I think. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Harrias ( talk · contribs) 17:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- 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);
- it contains no original research; and
- it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
I'm going to stop this review for the moment to give you time to work on the sourcing issues raised above. Please check through every single source in the article to ensure that all facts presented in the article are present in the source material. Once you're happy, ping me, and I'll carry out further spotchecks. I'll stick the nomination on hold for the time being. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Beyond these two, the rest of the sourcing looks fine.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
1. Well-written:
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
(roughly equivalent to ${{inflation|US|0.1|1950|r=2}}{{nbsp}}million in {{Inflation/year|US}})
to give "..that generated over $100,000 (roughly equivalent to $1.27 million in 2023) in revenue.." for context.3. Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- 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.
@ Gonzo fan2007: That's a wrap I think. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)