From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the Plot, "...as Mayor West proves more politically savvy than she", shouldn't "she" be "her"? Same section, same sentence, just a suggestion ---> "...as Mayor West proves to be more politically savvy than her", again just a suggestion.
    Done. Gage ( talk) 20:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
    Check.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Not that much to do. If the above query can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Your concerns have been addressed. Gage ( talk) 20:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Thank you for addressing it, cause I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the Plot, "...as Mayor West proves more politically savvy than she", shouldn't "she" be "her"? Same section, same sentence, just a suggestion ---> "...as Mayor West proves to be more politically savvy than her", again just a suggestion.
    Done. Gage ( talk) 20:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
    Check.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Not that much to do. If the above query can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Your concerns have been addressed. Gage ( talk) 20:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Thank you for addressing it, cause I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook