GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: MrWooHoo ( talk · contribs) 14:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm MrWooHoo. I'd like to quickly explain how I'll be reviewing this article. I will do a general review (checking the criteria), then doing an in-depth prose and source review. Thanks! MrWooHoo ( T • C) 14:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Earwig shows that this article is 47% of the same content as the WP article. Please fix any copyright violations ASAP or correct me if I'm wrong.
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. | See prose review below. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | See prose review below. | |
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. | Nothing that's uncited. | |
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). | See source review below. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything is cited. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Coverage seems good for a GA article. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Focus is on point. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No obvious biases. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No consistent vandalism found in logs. | |
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. | Copyright statuses all seem right, however I have a question about the Go Logo picture. The rationale for fair use is that it doesn't cross the threshold of originality, however I feel like GO may have trademarked this logo. If not, you can probably keep the current fair use rationale, but otherwise I would suggest Template:Non-free use rationale 2 and Template:Non-free logo. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Captions and images are good. | |
7. Overall assessment. | See above comment and below prose/source reviews. |
Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::
, then use or Done
If the change was only partially done use , and or Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P)
To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.
File:GO_Transit_logo.svg is indeed a trademarked logo. However, I think it has been tagged appropriately and is still eligible for use on Commons. I still believe the threshold of originality rationale has not been met by this logo. Furthermore, {{ trademark}} has also been added to the page, alerting users that despite not having copyright status, it may be subject to other restrictions. I believe this is in line with other logos and guidance on the Commons. -- Natural RX 15:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: MrWooHoo ( talk · contribs) 14:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm MrWooHoo. I'd like to quickly explain how I'll be reviewing this article. I will do a general review (checking the criteria), then doing an in-depth prose and source review. Thanks! MrWooHoo ( T • C) 14:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Earwig shows that this article is 47% of the same content as the WP article. Please fix any copyright violations ASAP or correct me if I'm wrong.
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. | See prose review below. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | See prose review below. | |
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. | Nothing that's uncited. | |
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). | See source review below. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything is cited. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Coverage seems good for a GA article. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Focus is on point. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No obvious biases. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No consistent vandalism found in logs. | |
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. | Copyright statuses all seem right, however I have a question about the Go Logo picture. The rationale for fair use is that it doesn't cross the threshold of originality, however I feel like GO may have trademarked this logo. If not, you can probably keep the current fair use rationale, but otherwise I would suggest Template:Non-free use rationale 2 and Template:Non-free logo. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Captions and images are good. | |
7. Overall assessment. | See above comment and below prose/source reviews. |
Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::
, then use or Done
If the change was only partially done use , and or Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P)
To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.
File:GO_Transit_logo.svg is indeed a trademarked logo. However, I think it has been tagged appropriately and is still eligible for use on Commons. I still believe the threshold of originality rationale has not been met by this logo. Furthermore, {{ trademark}} has also been added to the page, alerting users that despite not having copyright status, it may be subject to other restrictions. I believe this is in line with other logos and guidance on the Commons. -- Natural RX 15:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)