GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: SSTflyer ( talk · contribs) 12:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I will take this. Comments will be posted soon. sst ✈ 12:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
— sst ✈ 12:21, 13 January 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. | I see nothing that needs to be fixed regarding prose | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Per criteria. Others may prefer different layouts but this is fine. I am assuming that the words are used from the sources. | |
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. | Now acceptable after source additions sst ✈ 05:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC) | |
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). | WP:AGF for offline sources. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Now acceptable after source additions sst ✈ 05:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC) | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Copyvios confidence 21.3% | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Since this is my first review of an article about a train station, I compared it to other train station GAs. I find the coverage on this article acceptable, though not comprehensive. | |
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. | The article mainly presents facts, and I cannot see any viewpoints. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No current disputes | |
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 are either PD or CC-BY-SA 3.0 | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant to the prose | |
7. Overall assessment. | Passed. sst ✈ 05:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: SSTflyer ( talk · contribs) 12:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I will take this. Comments will be posted soon. sst ✈ 12:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
— sst ✈ 12:21, 13 January 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. | I see nothing that needs to be fixed regarding prose | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Per criteria. Others may prefer different layouts but this is fine. I am assuming that the words are used from the sources. | |
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. | Now acceptable after source additions sst ✈ 05:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC) | |
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). | WP:AGF for offline sources. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Now acceptable after source additions sst ✈ 05:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC) | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Copyvios confidence 21.3% | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Since this is my first review of an article about a train station, I compared it to other train station GAs. I find the coverage on this article acceptable, though not comprehensive. | |
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. | The article mainly presents facts, and I cannot see any viewpoints. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No current disputes | |
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 are either PD or CC-BY-SA 3.0 | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant to the prose | |
7. Overall assessment. | Passed. sst ✈ 05:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |