GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: I would be happy to review this article for GA status. Any and all other comments by involved and uninvolved editors are welcome and appreciated. Good luck!
First of all I do a good read through. If I find spelling or grammar mistakes, I simply fix them without bringing what I find here. It's a waste of time finding a spelling error and making a comment about how someone else should fix it. If I find duplicate links, I fix them for the same reasons. If I see a place for a wikilink, I do the formatting for creating the link. I check the links to see if they link to the right articles. Again, if I find a problem and it is faster for me to just fix it, I will. If you want to see what I fix as I go along, watch the article edit history. I am not going to sign my comments. If you see a comment that is unsigned, it is mine. Again a little time-saver of mine. Everyone else, sign your comments.
I believe this to be an encouraging process, not a trial. If I find something I like, I will say so. If I find something I don't like, I will say so but if it has no bearing on the criteria listed below, it will not determine if the article passes the review or not.
This is a long and technical article. I have degrees in chemistry and biology. I am now enrolled in a nursing program. Therefore, I anticipate that it will take longer than usual to make this review.
Preliminary opinion, first glance: It looks great - I don't anticipate finding major difficulties.
Someone has created a script, a tool that is supposed to help evaluate the article. I don't quite understand the significance of the tool but will post the results that the tool spits out. Lots of time, the tool makes suggestions for improvements that I think are unnecessary. It checks dead links and such. I will post the results of what the 'GA review' tool/script spits out here:
I will be on vacation from Jan 4 - Jan 10. I might work on the review during this time; it depends on other activities that I participate in while I'm on vacation.
Here are the criteria that I will be using to assess the article:
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓ Good to go
This is still ongoing.
✓ Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
This is on-going and will probably take the longest. I am checking the wiki-links.
✓Good to go
✓ Citations are to reliable sources. Good to go.
The coverage in the article covers the major aspects and is focused.
✓ Good to go (since you are unfamiliar with what I am talking about, I will go in and add it later)
✓ Good to go.
✓The article is stable and the edit history shows that it has a regular and consistent history with edits from many good editors. I see no edit wars. Good to go.
✓The images and illustrations add to the article and appropriate. I see you are a graphic artist and created at least one of the images. That is great! Good to go.
I just skimmed over this so this'll be brief
Would you be able to address the numerous times that Locus coerruleus is wikilinked? Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: I would be happy to review this article for GA status. Any and all other comments by involved and uninvolved editors are welcome and appreciated. Good luck!
First of all I do a good read through. If I find spelling or grammar mistakes, I simply fix them without bringing what I find here. It's a waste of time finding a spelling error and making a comment about how someone else should fix it. If I find duplicate links, I fix them for the same reasons. If I see a place for a wikilink, I do the formatting for creating the link. I check the links to see if they link to the right articles. Again, if I find a problem and it is faster for me to just fix it, I will. If you want to see what I fix as I go along, watch the article edit history. I am not going to sign my comments. If you see a comment that is unsigned, it is mine. Again a little time-saver of mine. Everyone else, sign your comments.
I believe this to be an encouraging process, not a trial. If I find something I like, I will say so. If I find something I don't like, I will say so but if it has no bearing on the criteria listed below, it will not determine if the article passes the review or not.
This is a long and technical article. I have degrees in chemistry and biology. I am now enrolled in a nursing program. Therefore, I anticipate that it will take longer than usual to make this review.
Preliminary opinion, first glance: It looks great - I don't anticipate finding major difficulties.
Someone has created a script, a tool that is supposed to help evaluate the article. I don't quite understand the significance of the tool but will post the results that the tool spits out. Lots of time, the tool makes suggestions for improvements that I think are unnecessary. It checks dead links and such. I will post the results of what the 'GA review' tool/script spits out here:
I will be on vacation from Jan 4 - Jan 10. I might work on the review during this time; it depends on other activities that I participate in while I'm on vacation.
Here are the criteria that I will be using to assess the article:
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓ Good to go
This is still ongoing.
✓ Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
This is on-going and will probably take the longest. I am checking the wiki-links.
✓Good to go
✓ Citations are to reliable sources. Good to go.
The coverage in the article covers the major aspects and is focused.
✓ Good to go (since you are unfamiliar with what I am talking about, I will go in and add it later)
✓ Good to go.
✓The article is stable and the edit history shows that it has a regular and consistent history with edits from many good editors. I see no edit wars. Good to go.
✓The images and illustrations add to the article and appropriate. I see you are a graphic artist and created at least one of the images. That is great! Good to go.
I just skimmed over this so this'll be brief
Would you be able to address the numerous times that Locus coerruleus is wikilinked? Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)