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: Ganesha811 ( talk · contribs) 14:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on
my talk page, either's fine!
—Ganesha811 (
talk) 14:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Reopening review - some improvements have been made, but after another week on hold the issues below have not yet been fully addressed. The article was last edited on the 16th. Turini2, please see if you can get to them in the next few days (before the 28th) or I'll have to close out this review. Thanks. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 00:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
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. |
Have done so! There's a few duplications where I thought it would be useful - tables and the like - and I've edited the text slightly so more complicated terms appear where they are most useful ( Transport and Works Act for example). Turini2 ( talk) 17:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
| |
1b. 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: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
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). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
Have done so! Turini2 ( talk) 17:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. 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. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
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. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
Yeah, I think that was the logic there - I'll duplicate it. Turini2 ( talk) 14:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
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: Ganesha811 ( talk · contribs) 14:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on
my talk page, either's fine!
—Ganesha811 (
talk) 14:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Reopening review - some improvements have been made, but after another week on hold the issues below have not yet been fully addressed. The article was last edited on the 16th. Turini2, please see if you can get to them in the next few days (before the 28th) or I'll have to close out this review. Thanks. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 00:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
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. |
Have done so! There's a few duplications where I thought it would be useful - tables and the like - and I've edited the text slightly so more complicated terms appear where they are most useful ( Transport and Works Act for example). Turini2 ( talk) 17:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
| |
1b. 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: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
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). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
Have done so! Turini2 ( talk) 17:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. 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. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
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. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
Yeah, I think that was the logic there - I'll duplicate it. Turini2 ( talk) 14:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
| |
7. Overall assessment. |