From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:JBL Paragon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn ( talk · contribs) 14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator:  Ohc  ¡digame!

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. -- Seabuckthorn  14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC) reply


1: Well-written

Check for WP:LEAD:

  1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done
  2. Check for Citations ( WP:LEADCITE):  Done
  3. Check for Introductory text:  Done
    • Check for Provide an accessible overview ( MOS:INTRO):  Done
      • The lead can be improved to provide an accessible overview.
    • Check for Relative emphasis:  Done
      • The lead can be improved to give relative emphasis.
    • Check for Opening paragraph ( MOS:BEGIN):  Done
      • Check for First sentence ( WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done
      • Check for Format of the first sentence ( MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done
      • Check for Proper names and titles:  Done
      • Check for Abbreviations and synonyms ( MOS:BOLDSYN): None
      • Check for Foreign language ( MOS:FORLANG): None
      • Check for Pronunciation: None
      • Check for Contextual links ( MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done
      • Check for Biographies: NA
      • Check for Organisms: NA
  4. Check for Biographies of living persons: NA
  5. Check for Alternative names ( MOS:LEADALT):  Done
    • Check for Non-English titles:
    • Check for Usage in first sentence:
    • Check for Separate section usage:
  6. Check for Length ( WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done
  7. Check for Clutter ( WP:LEADCLUTTER): None
 Done

Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done

  1. Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done
    • Check for Headings and sections:  Done
    • Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done
    • Check for Paragraphs ( MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done
  2. Check for Standard appendices and footers ( MOS:APPENDIX):  Done
    • Check for Order of sections ( WP:ORDER):  Done
    • Check for Works or publications:  Done
    • Check for See also section ( MOS:SEEALSO):  Done
    • Check for Notes and references ( WP:FNNR):  Done
    • Check for Further reading ( WP:FURTHER):  Done
    • Check for External links ( WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done
    • Check for Links to sister projects:  Done
    • Check for Navigation templates:  Done
  3. Check for Formatting:  Done
    • Check for Images ( WP:LAYIM):  Done
    • Check for Links:  Done
    • Check for Horizontal rule ( WP:LINE):  Done
 Done

Check for WP:WTW:  Done

  1. Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done
    • Check for Puffery ( WP:PEA):  Done
    • Check for Contentious labels ( WP:LABEL):  Done
    • Check for Unsupported attributions ( WP:WEASEL):  Done
    • Check for Expressions of doubt ( WP:ALLEGED):  Done
    • Check for Editorializing ( MOS:OPED):  Done
    • Check for Synonyms for said ( WP:SAY):  Done
  2. Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done
    • Check for Euphemisms ( WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done
    • Check for Clichés and idioms ( WP:IDIOM):  Done
    • Check for Relative time references ( WP:REALTIME):  Done
    • Check for Neologisms ( WP:PEA): None
  3. Check for Offensive material ( WP:F***):  Done

Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done

  1. Check for Real-world perspective ( WP:Real world):  Done
    • Check for Primary and secondary information ( WP:PASI):  Done
    • Check for Contextual presentation ( MOS:PLOT):  Done
None


2: Verifiable with no original research

 Done

Check for WP:RS:  Done

  1. Check for the material ( WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done
    • Is it contentious?: No
    • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
  2. Check for the author ( WP:RSVETTING):  Done
    • Who is the author?:
    • Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
    • What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
    • What else has the author published?:
    • Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
  3. Check for the publication ( WP:RSVETTING):  Done
  4. Check for Self-published sources ( WP:SPS):
 Done

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done

  1. Check for Direct quotations:  Done
  2. Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done
  3. Check for Contentious material about living persons ( WP:BLP): NA
 Done
  1. Check for primary sources ( WP:PRIMARY):  Done
  2. Check for synthesis ( WP:SYN):  Done
  3. Check for original images ( WP:OI):  Done


3: Broad in its coverage

 Done
  1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
    1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
    2. Check for Out of scope:
  2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
    1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
    2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
    3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
    4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
    5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic ( WP:OFFTOPIC):
b. Focused:
 Done
  1. Check for Readability issues ( WP:LENGTH):
  2. Check for Article size ( WP:TOO LONG!):


4: Neutral

 Done

4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

  1. Check for POV ( WP:YESPOV):  Done
  2. Check for naming ( WP:POVNAMING):  Done
  3. Check for structure ( WP:STRUCTURE):  Done
  4. Check for Due and undue weight ( WP:DUE):  Done
  5. Check for Balancing aspects ( WP:BALASPS):  Done
  6. Check for Giving "equal validity" ( WP:VALID):  Done
  7. Check for Balance ( WP:YESPOV):  Done
  8. Check for Impartial tone ( WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done
  9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions ( WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done
  10. Check for Words to watch ( WP:YESPOV):  Done
  11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements ( WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done
  12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience ( WP:PSCI): None
  13. Check for Religion ( WP:RNPOV): None


5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done

Images:
 Done

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done

  1. Check for copyright tags ( WP:TAGS):  Done
  2. Check for copyright status:  Done
  3. Check for non-free content ( WP:NFC):  Done
  4. Check for valid fair use rationales ( WP:FUR):  Done

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done

  1. Check for image relevance ( WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done
  2. Check for Images for the lead ( WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done
  3. Check for suitable captions ( WP:CAPTION):  Done


I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:

  • I think the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis.
  • I think the lead can be expanded.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. You've done great work, and I am quite happy to assist you in improving it. All the best, -- Seabuckthorn  13:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks for your comments. I have expanded the lead section, and I believe it now provides an adequate summary of the article. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Promoting the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn  11:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:JBL Paragon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn ( talk · contribs) 14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator:  Ohc  ¡digame!

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. -- Seabuckthorn  14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC) reply


1: Well-written

Check for WP:LEAD:

  1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done
  2. Check for Citations ( WP:LEADCITE):  Done
  3. Check for Introductory text:  Done
    • Check for Provide an accessible overview ( MOS:INTRO):  Done
      • The lead can be improved to provide an accessible overview.
    • Check for Relative emphasis:  Done
      • The lead can be improved to give relative emphasis.
    • Check for Opening paragraph ( MOS:BEGIN):  Done
      • Check for First sentence ( WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done
      • Check for Format of the first sentence ( MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done
      • Check for Proper names and titles:  Done
      • Check for Abbreviations and synonyms ( MOS:BOLDSYN): None
      • Check for Foreign language ( MOS:FORLANG): None
      • Check for Pronunciation: None
      • Check for Contextual links ( MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done
      • Check for Biographies: NA
      • Check for Organisms: NA
  4. Check for Biographies of living persons: NA
  5. Check for Alternative names ( MOS:LEADALT):  Done
    • Check for Non-English titles:
    • Check for Usage in first sentence:
    • Check for Separate section usage:
  6. Check for Length ( WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done
  7. Check for Clutter ( WP:LEADCLUTTER): None
 Done

Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done

  1. Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done
    • Check for Headings and sections:  Done
    • Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done
    • Check for Paragraphs ( MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done
  2. Check for Standard appendices and footers ( MOS:APPENDIX):  Done
    • Check for Order of sections ( WP:ORDER):  Done
    • Check for Works or publications:  Done
    • Check for See also section ( MOS:SEEALSO):  Done
    • Check for Notes and references ( WP:FNNR):  Done
    • Check for Further reading ( WP:FURTHER):  Done
    • Check for External links ( WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done
    • Check for Links to sister projects:  Done
    • Check for Navigation templates:  Done
  3. Check for Formatting:  Done
    • Check for Images ( WP:LAYIM):  Done
    • Check for Links:  Done
    • Check for Horizontal rule ( WP:LINE):  Done
 Done

Check for WP:WTW:  Done

  1. Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done
    • Check for Puffery ( WP:PEA):  Done
    • Check for Contentious labels ( WP:LABEL):  Done
    • Check for Unsupported attributions ( WP:WEASEL):  Done
    • Check for Expressions of doubt ( WP:ALLEGED):  Done
    • Check for Editorializing ( MOS:OPED):  Done
    • Check for Synonyms for said ( WP:SAY):  Done
  2. Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done
    • Check for Euphemisms ( WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done
    • Check for Clichés and idioms ( WP:IDIOM):  Done
    • Check for Relative time references ( WP:REALTIME):  Done
    • Check for Neologisms ( WP:PEA): None
  3. Check for Offensive material ( WP:F***):  Done

Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done

  1. Check for Real-world perspective ( WP:Real world):  Done
    • Check for Primary and secondary information ( WP:PASI):  Done
    • Check for Contextual presentation ( MOS:PLOT):  Done
None


2: Verifiable with no original research

 Done

Check for WP:RS:  Done

  1. Check for the material ( WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done
    • Is it contentious?: No
    • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
  2. Check for the author ( WP:RSVETTING):  Done
    • Who is the author?:
    • Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
    • What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
    • What else has the author published?:
    • Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
  3. Check for the publication ( WP:RSVETTING):  Done
  4. Check for Self-published sources ( WP:SPS):
 Done

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done

  1. Check for Direct quotations:  Done
  2. Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done
  3. Check for Contentious material about living persons ( WP:BLP): NA
 Done
  1. Check for primary sources ( WP:PRIMARY):  Done
  2. Check for synthesis ( WP:SYN):  Done
  3. Check for original images ( WP:OI):  Done


3: Broad in its coverage

 Done
  1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
    1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
    2. Check for Out of scope:
  2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
    1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
    2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
    3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
    4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
    5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic ( WP:OFFTOPIC):
b. Focused:
 Done
  1. Check for Readability issues ( WP:LENGTH):
  2. Check for Article size ( WP:TOO LONG!):


4: Neutral

 Done

4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

  1. Check for POV ( WP:YESPOV):  Done
  2. Check for naming ( WP:POVNAMING):  Done
  3. Check for structure ( WP:STRUCTURE):  Done
  4. Check for Due and undue weight ( WP:DUE):  Done
  5. Check for Balancing aspects ( WP:BALASPS):  Done
  6. Check for Giving "equal validity" ( WP:VALID):  Done
  7. Check for Balance ( WP:YESPOV):  Done
  8. Check for Impartial tone ( WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done
  9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions ( WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done
  10. Check for Words to watch ( WP:YESPOV):  Done
  11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements ( WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done
  12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience ( WP:PSCI): None
  13. Check for Religion ( WP:RNPOV): None


5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done

Images:
 Done

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done

  1. Check for copyright tags ( WP:TAGS):  Done
  2. Check for copyright status:  Done
  3. Check for non-free content ( WP:NFC):  Done
  4. Check for valid fair use rationales ( WP:FUR):  Done

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done

  1. Check for image relevance ( WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done
  2. Check for Images for the lead ( WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done
  3. Check for suitable captions ( WP:CAPTION):  Done


I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:

  • I think the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis.
  • I think the lead can be expanded.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. You've done great work, and I am quite happy to assist you in improving it. All the best, -- Seabuckthorn  13:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks for your comments. I have expanded the lead section, and I believe it now provides an adequate summary of the article. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Promoting the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn  11:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook