GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 12:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I worked on this entry as part of a series on victims of Joe McCarthy and got distracted cleaning up the entry for the Condon Report. My two cents:
Cheers. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 15:58, 16 October 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. | Previous problems with the prose have been attended to and I have made a couple of minor alterations to the text. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Article is well laid out in appropriate sections. |
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. | Article is well referenced. |
![]() |
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). | Article is well referenced. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Not as far as I can see. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Article is sufficiently broad in scope. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | This criterion met. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | This criterion met. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article is stable. |
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. | There is only one image and it is in the public domain. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The single image seems sufficient with regard to the contents of the article. The image has no caption but a caption is unnecessary in the context of the infobox. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | I believe the article meets the Good Article criteria. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC) |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 12:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I worked on this entry as part of a series on victims of Joe McCarthy and got distracted cleaning up the entry for the Condon Report. My two cents:
Cheers. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 15:58, 16 October 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. | Previous problems with the prose have been attended to and I have made a couple of minor alterations to the text. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Article is well laid out in appropriate sections. |
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. | Article is well referenced. |
![]() |
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). | Article is well referenced. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Not as far as I can see. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Article is sufficiently broad in scope. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | This criterion met. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | This criterion met. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article is stable. |
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. | There is only one image and it is in the public domain. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The single image seems sufficient with regard to the contents of the article. The image has no caption but a caption is unnecessary in the context of the infobox. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | I believe the article meets the Good Article criteria. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC) |