GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: –
Quadell (
talk)
16:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator:
User:Visionholder
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. | Very well written. A pleasure to read. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lede, article organization, the infobox, and the end sections are all excellent. |
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. | The References section is great. |
![]() |
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). | In all my spotchecks, the sources fully back up the data, and there is no plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Excellent and reliable. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Not a problem. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Absolutely. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | It's very long, but I don't think it goes into unnecessary detail on any facet. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | I searched for reliable sources of criticism of Seacology, but couldn't find anything. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Not a problem |
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. | Images are terrific. The logo is used properly and has a correct tag and rationale. All other images are verified free through OTRS. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are fitting, and captions are excellent. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Very nice. This article has truly earned GA status. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: –
Quadell (
talk)
16:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator:
User:Visionholder
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. | Very well written. A pleasure to read. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lede, article organization, the infobox, and the end sections are all excellent. |
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. | The References section is great. |
![]() |
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). | In all my spotchecks, the sources fully back up the data, and there is no plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Excellent and reliable. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Not a problem. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Absolutely. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | It's very long, but I don't think it goes into unnecessary detail on any facet. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | I searched for reliable sources of criticism of Seacology, but couldn't find anything. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Not a problem |
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. | Images are terrific. The logo is used properly and has a correct tag and rationale. All other images are verified free through OTRS. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are fitting, and captions are excellent. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Very nice. This article has truly earned GA status. |