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:
Ankit Maity (
talk ·
contribs)
08:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
A review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Mostly clear, but with possible improvements as pointed below.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Not too enamored with the mass of links for See also
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Please note that if the article is not improved within seven days the nomination will be rejected.-- Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 12:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
There was a comment from someone working on incorporating the links as references, so I thought I'd move it here so it doesn't get lost in cleanup: -- Ronz ( talk) 00:52, 16 December 2015 (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:
Ankit Maity (
talk ·
contribs)
08:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
A review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Mostly clear, but with possible improvements as pointed below.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Not too enamored with the mass of links for See also
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Please note that if the article is not improved within seven days the nomination will be rejected.-- Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 12:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
There was a comment from someone working on incorporating the links as references, so I thought I'd move it here so it doesn't get lost in cleanup: -- Ronz ( talk) 00:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)