GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Vice regent ( talk · contribs) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I have started reading this article. VR talk 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell some early thoughts as I read the article.
VR talk 04:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Now for the review.
The article is well written. No spelling or grammatical issues, sentences are not too long and I can follow the prose easily. It follows MOS guidelines, no WTA that I can see. Lead follows MOS and the issues I identified with the lead above were fixed by Doug Coldwell - thanks for that.
Every sentence in the article body has a citation. The sources are appropriate for this article, and I don't see any reliability issues. Citation style is appropriate. No original research, no excessive quotations. No BLP issues.
All major aspects seem to be addressed. This is not a broad topic to begin with and I suspect reliable sources don't have much to say about this watch company. So while the article is small, I don't see any problems with that. There are no issues relating to unnecessary detail.
No NPOV issues. Again, this topic isn't one that I'd suspect of being prone to NPOV issues. The article is written objectively. Nothing controversial in the content that would make me suspect issues with WP:DUE.
Yes. I don't see any recent disputes in the article history or talk page.
All images are relevant and have captions. I don't see any copyright issues with any of them.
I saw this article was reviewed before ( version reviewed). I think the article has come a long way since, especially with respect to organization. So I'm going ahead and passing the GA nom. VR talk 07:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Vice regent ( talk · contribs) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I have started reading this article. VR talk 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell some early thoughts as I read the article.
VR talk 04:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Now for the review.
The article is well written. No spelling or grammatical issues, sentences are not too long and I can follow the prose easily. It follows MOS guidelines, no WTA that I can see. Lead follows MOS and the issues I identified with the lead above were fixed by Doug Coldwell - thanks for that.
Every sentence in the article body has a citation. The sources are appropriate for this article, and I don't see any reliability issues. Citation style is appropriate. No original research, no excessive quotations. No BLP issues.
All major aspects seem to be addressed. This is not a broad topic to begin with and I suspect reliable sources don't have much to say about this watch company. So while the article is small, I don't see any problems with that. There are no issues relating to unnecessary detail.
No NPOV issues. Again, this topic isn't one that I'd suspect of being prone to NPOV issues. The article is written objectively. Nothing controversial in the content that would make me suspect issues with WP:DUE.
Yes. I don't see any recent disputes in the article history or talk page.
All images are relevant and have captions. I don't see any copyright issues with any of them.
I saw this article was reviewed before ( version reviewed). I think the article has come a long way since, especially with respect to organization. So I'm going ahead and passing the GA nom. VR talk 07:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)