Robert Dirks has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 12, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Robert Dirks appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 24 July 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Hi,
I've made some edits to Robert Dirks' Wikipedia page this morning to provide a few more details of Robert's early life and to fix a few factual errors. Then I came across the "Conflict of Interest" page and realized I shouldn't have made these edit's directly since I am Robert's brother. What is the correct way to proceed now?
Thanks for your help,
Billdirks ( talk) 16:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jclemens ( talk · contribs) 05:25, 9 August 2016 (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. | Some issues identified | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No issues noted. | |
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. | Appropriate | |
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). | Appropriate | |
2c. it contains no original research. | None seen. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Nothing seen with Earwig's tool. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Appropriate. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No coatracks noted. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No issues noted. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Nothing noted. | |
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. | fair use image acceptable for deceased subject. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No issues. "File:Mao-4armjunction-schematic.png" says it should be replaced with the .svg version, but that's not a GA criterion. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Passing per improvements in prose. |
Not a lot of prose, and most of it is OK, but there's ample room for some polishing here. Jclemens ( talk) 05:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Robert Dirks has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 12, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Robert Dirks appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 24 July 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Hi,
I've made some edits to Robert Dirks' Wikipedia page this morning to provide a few more details of Robert's early life and to fix a few factual errors. Then I came across the "Conflict of Interest" page and realized I shouldn't have made these edit's directly since I am Robert's brother. What is the correct way to proceed now?
Thanks for your help,
Billdirks ( talk) 16:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jclemens ( talk · contribs) 05:25, 9 August 2016 (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. | Some issues identified | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No issues noted. | |
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. | Appropriate | |
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). | Appropriate | |
2c. it contains no original research. | None seen. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Nothing seen with Earwig's tool. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Appropriate. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No coatracks noted. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No issues noted. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Nothing noted. | |
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. | fair use image acceptable for deceased subject. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No issues. "File:Mao-4armjunction-schematic.png" says it should be replaced with the .svg version, but that's not a GA criterion. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Passing per improvements in prose. |
Not a lot of prose, and most of it is OK, but there's ample room for some polishing here. Jclemens ( talk) 05:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)