Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Ham tech person 03:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I will review in my free time. Ham tech person 03:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Look forward to receiving any suggestions. – Juliancolton | Talk 12:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Against Criteria
1. Pass
- A) Prose is fine. Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- B) Well compliant with MoS guidelines Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Failed 2B
- A) Includes a references section. Pass Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- B) Please source the statistics in the intro. all statistics must be sourced. Thus FAIL
Ham
tech
person
03:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, lead material doesn't have to be sourced as per WP:LEAD
[1]; all meaningful information is already sourced in the main article. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
02:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, per WP:GA?, all statistics must be sourced.
[2] Also, statistics can be challenged, and WP:LEAD says that material that is likely to be challenged should be sourced. It also does not state that the may not be citations in the lead.
[1]
Ham
tech
person
14:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and indeed all statistics are sourced. Lead sourcing is optional. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'll call for a second opinion.
Ham
tech
person
21:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- SECOND OPINION: In my opinion, Julian is correct. As long as the statistics are cited in the body, there's no need to repeat them in the lead per
WP:LEAD. I'd recommend
passing this article for GA, but I'll leave the final decision to you.
–
Grondemar
21:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- SECOND OPINION: In my opinion, Julian is correct. As long as the statistics are cited in the body, there's no need to repeat them in the lead per
WP:LEAD. I'd recommend
- I'll call for a second opinion.
Ham
tech
person
21:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and indeed all statistics are sourced. Lead sourcing is optional. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, per WP:GA?, all statistics must be sourced.
[2] Also, statistics can be challenged, and WP:LEAD says that material that is likely to be challenged should be sourced. It also does not state that the may not be citations in the lead.
[1]
Ham
tech
person
14:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, lead material doesn't have to be sourced as per WP:LEAD
[1]; all meaningful information is already sourced in the main article. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
02:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Passed (with some WP:GA? related doubts) Ham tech person 02:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- C) WP:NOR Compliant. [3] Pass
3. Pass
- A) Way to stay focused on the main points. Pass Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- B) No unnecessary detail. Pass. Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
4. This article is more neutral than a pH 7 substance. Pass. Ham tech person 03:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Pass. Quite stable in fact. Ham tech person 03:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Pass
- A) licensing is fine. Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- B) Images are quite well kaptioned. Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Policy Cited
Comments by Other Users
Third Opinion
I'd also advise passing this. Information in the lead does not need references, as long it is cited later on in the article. See these featured articles with uncited statistics in their leads:
There are many others. I'd say if featured articles can get away with it, good articles definitely can. Torchiest ( talk | contribs) 01:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Ham tech person 03:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I will review in my free time. Ham tech person 03:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Look forward to receiving any suggestions. – Juliancolton | Talk 12:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Against Criteria
1. Pass
- A) Prose is fine. Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- B) Well compliant with MoS guidelines Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Failed 2B
- A) Includes a references section. Pass Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- B) Please source the statistics in the intro. all statistics must be sourced. Thus FAIL
Ham
tech
person
03:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, lead material doesn't have to be sourced as per WP:LEAD
[1]; all meaningful information is already sourced in the main article. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
02:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, per WP:GA?, all statistics must be sourced.
[2] Also, statistics can be challenged, and WP:LEAD says that material that is likely to be challenged should be sourced. It also does not state that the may not be citations in the lead.
[1]
Ham
tech
person
14:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and indeed all statistics are sourced. Lead sourcing is optional. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'll call for a second opinion.
Ham
tech
person
21:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- SECOND OPINION: In my opinion, Julian is correct. As long as the statistics are cited in the body, there's no need to repeat them in the lead per
WP:LEAD. I'd recommend passing this article for GA, but I'll leave the final decision to you.
–
Grondemar
21:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- SECOND OPINION: In my opinion, Julian is correct. As long as the statistics are cited in the body, there's no need to repeat them in the lead per
WP:LEAD. I'd recommend
- I'll call for a second opinion.
Ham
tech
person
21:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and indeed all statistics are sourced. Lead sourcing is optional. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, per WP:GA?, all statistics must be sourced.
[2] Also, statistics can be challenged, and WP:LEAD says that material that is likely to be challenged should be sourced. It also does not state that the may not be citations in the lead.
[1]
Ham
tech
person
14:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, lead material doesn't have to be sourced as per WP:LEAD
[1]; all meaningful information is already sourced in the main article. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
02:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Passed (with some WP:GA? related doubts) Ham tech person 02:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- C) WP:NOR Compliant. [3] Pass
3. Pass
- A) Way to stay focused on the main points. Pass Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- B) No unnecessary detail. Pass. Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
4. This article is more neutral than a pH 7 substance. Pass. Ham tech person 03:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Pass. Quite stable in fact. Ham tech person 03:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Pass
- A) licensing is fine. Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- B) Images are quite well kaptioned. Ham tech person 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Policy Cited
Comments by Other Users
Third Opinion
I'd also advise passing this. Information in the lead does not need references, as long it is cited later on in the article. See these featured articles with uncited statistics in their leads:
There are many others. I'd say if featured articles can get away with it, good articles definitely can. Torchiest ( talk | contribs) 01:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)