From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert ( talk · contribs) 05:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply


I will review this article shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Initial comments/suggestions: G'day, Nick, this is excellent work. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Criteria

1. Well written: checkY

a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: checkY

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
b. all in-line 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;
c. it contains no original research; and
d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: checkY

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. checkY

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute checkY

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: checkY

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Passing review now. Thanks for your efforts with this article, Nick. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert ( talk · contribs) 05:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply


I will review this article shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Initial comments/suggestions: G'day, Nick, this is excellent work. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Criteria

1. Well written: checkY

a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: checkY

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
b. all in-line 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;
c. it contains no original research; and
d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: checkY

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. checkY

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute checkY

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: checkY

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Passing review now. Thanks for your efforts with this article, Nick. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook