GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: EpicPupper ( talk · contribs) 22:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. This is my first review, so I may take longer to go through the article. Thanks for your patience!
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. | Thank you for your work on the prose. I've copy edited some of it as well, and will ask for help at the GOCE for further improvements. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Soft pass. I don't see anything that needs working on. |
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. | Pass. References are good. |
![]() |
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). | Pass. Citations are reliable. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Weak pass. I see that you've added additional sources, but some of the article is on the verge of not meeting GA criteria (e.g. the auto trails parts). I encourage you to add additional sources in order to improve the article. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Pass, Earwig shows no results. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Pass, thorough. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Pass, thanks for clarifying the NHS mention. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Pass. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Pass. |
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. | Pass, no NFC, proper license tags. I also added some tags to the files as well. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Pass, added a wikilink. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass. Thank you for your hard work on this article. I encourage you to read the comments of this review and the previews ones that you've received before nominating more articles for GA, especially comments on copy editing and citations. |
The NHS mention is still problematic because it's trivial filler and also not verifiable🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@ EpicPupper: I fixed almost everything I could, just have a few questions. Thanks - 420Traveler ( talk) 19:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Please try to take some of this advice and apply it to other articles before nominating them for GAN, as I can see this is a reoccurring issue.🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: EpicPupper ( talk · contribs) 22:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. This is my first review, so I may take longer to go through the article. Thanks for your patience!
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. | Thank you for your work on the prose. I've copy edited some of it as well, and will ask for help at the GOCE for further improvements. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Soft pass. I don't see anything that needs working on. |
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. | Pass. References are good. |
![]() |
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). | Pass. Citations are reliable. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Weak pass. I see that you've added additional sources, but some of the article is on the verge of not meeting GA criteria (e.g. the auto trails parts). I encourage you to add additional sources in order to improve the article. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Pass, Earwig shows no results. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Pass, thorough. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Pass, thanks for clarifying the NHS mention. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Pass. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Pass. |
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. | Pass, no NFC, proper license tags. I also added some tags to the files as well. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Pass, added a wikilink. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass. Thank you for your hard work on this article. I encourage you to read the comments of this review and the previews ones that you've received before nominating more articles for GA, especially comments on copy editing and citations. |
The NHS mention is still problematic because it's trivial filler and also not verifiable🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@ EpicPupper: I fixed almost everything I could, just have a few questions. Thanks - 420Traveler ( talk) 19:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Please try to take some of this advice and apply it to other articles before nominating them for GAN, as I can see this is a reoccurring issue.🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)