The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Rublov ( talk · contribs) 23:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this article. PS: I haven't forgotten about Wikipedia:Peer review/Ike for President (advertisement)/archive1; it's still on my to-do list. Ruбlov ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
the prose is clear, concise, and
understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
it complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline
all
inline citations are from
reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines
it contains
no original research
it contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism
it addresses the
main aspects of the topic
it stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style)
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute
media are
tagged with their
copyright statuses, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content
media are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions
Nice article. Just a few things to address. Putting on hold. Ruбlov ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Rublov ( talk · contribs) 23:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this article. PS: I haven't forgotten about Wikipedia:Peer review/Ike for President (advertisement)/archive1; it's still on my to-do list. Ruбlov ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
the prose is clear, concise, and
understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
it complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline
all
inline citations are from
reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines
it contains
no original research
it contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism
it addresses the
main aspects of the topic
it stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style)
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute
media are
tagged with their
copyright statuses, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content
media are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions
Nice article. Just a few things to address. Putting on hold. Ruбlov ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)