From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yellow Dingo ( talk · contribs) 11:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Taking, will review soon. —  Yellow Dingo  (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Review

Overview

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c ( OR):
    d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Detailed

1a

Overall

Short but good article. Putting on hold for now. —  Yellow Dingo  (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Yellow Dingo: Thanks for reviewing - I hadn't realised about the bolding; I'm going to go back to the other articles I've recently taken to GA and de-bold those too. Miyagawa ( talk) 09:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC) reply
I should have also said - I've made those changes you suggested! :) Miyagawa ( talk) 09:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Ok Miyagawa looks good. I'm happy to pass this article. Well done! —  Yellow Dingo  (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yellow Dingo ( talk · contribs) 11:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Taking, will review soon. —  Yellow Dingo  (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Review

Overview

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c ( OR):
    d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Detailed

1a

Overall

Short but good article. Putting on hold for now. —  Yellow Dingo  (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Yellow Dingo: Thanks for reviewing - I hadn't realised about the bolding; I'm going to go back to the other articles I've recently taken to GA and de-bold those too. Miyagawa ( talk) 09:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC) reply
I should have also said - I've made those changes you suggested! :) Miyagawa ( talk) 09:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Ok Miyagawa looks good. I'm happy to pass this article. Well done! —  Yellow Dingo  (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook