GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I am starting a Good Article review of this article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
There were some pretty simple bugs in the wording that I was able to fix. Overall it is pretty well done but I find the wording in some places to be a bit towards being an insider conversation amongst people who already are immersed in this stuff rather than an article which seeks to inform those who aren't. This is just a vague overall comment at this point, requesting a closer look in this respect. North8000 ( talk) 22:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Overall, I have some concerns regarding this article. Most are related to "insider to insider" type wording, which relates to some lack of clarity/explanation. There is a lot that is "borderline" in this areas which could still (just) pass if it was only that. (And I fixed a few myself where someone like myself without expertise or handy sources is able to do so.) But not so when combined with some more clearly-at-issue areas which I noted. The would be easy to fix for someone who has been editing here, but have sat open for 10 days with no response. More time is OK, but I wanted to note this now. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I am starting a Good Article review of this article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
There were some pretty simple bugs in the wording that I was able to fix. Overall it is pretty well done but I find the wording in some places to be a bit towards being an insider conversation amongst people who already are immersed in this stuff rather than an article which seeks to inform those who aren't. This is just a vague overall comment at this point, requesting a closer look in this respect. North8000 ( talk) 22:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Overall, I have some concerns regarding this article. Most are related to "insider to insider" type wording, which relates to some lack of clarity/explanation. There is a lot that is "borderline" in this areas which could still (just) pass if it was only that. (And I fixed a few myself where someone like myself without expertise or handy sources is able to do so.) But not so when combined with some more clearly-at-issue areas which I noted. The would be easy to fix for someone who has been editing here, but have sat open for 10 days with no response. More time is OK, but I wanted to note this now. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images