Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Hello. I am going to be reviewing this article, however, I will seek a second opinion when I'm finished as this is my first review ever. Thank you.
Mobile
Snail
15:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria
- Has
reliable sources
- Is written
neutrally
- No valid cleanup tags
- Is relatively stable with no edit wars
- Not specifically concerned with a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint
- Seattle Sounders FC passes the quick fail criteria. The full review will be conducted soon. Mobile Snail 15:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Full review
Here we go...
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (
MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and
verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to
reliable sources): c (
OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the
neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have
fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail: Pass
- Pass/Fail:
- Comments
- All in all, this article is very well done and is very much deserving of a Good Article status.
- Therefore, I myself have passed the article, however I will be seeking a second opinion on the final decision.
Mobile
Snail
16:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- As per your request I have given the article a "once-over" and can't find any real faults; I'm generally impressed with the quality. I have noticed some minor flaws with spacing etc. so it would be worth runnning through the article briefly; I've ammended a couple myself.
MasterOfHisOwnDomain (
talk)
21:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since MobileSnail appears to be having a short wikibreak, with no contributions made in almost two weeks, I shall be passing the article so that there are no further delays. MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 07:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- As per your request I have given the article a "once-over" and can't find any real faults; I'm generally impressed with the quality. I have noticed some minor flaws with spacing etc. so it would be worth runnning through the article briefly; I've ammended a couple myself.
MasterOfHisOwnDomain (
talk)
21:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Hello. I am going to be reviewing this article, however, I will seek a second opinion when I'm finished as this is my first review ever. Thank you.
Mobile
Snail
15:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria
- Has
reliable sources
- Is written
neutrally
- No valid cleanup tags
- Is relatively stable with no edit wars
- Not specifically concerned with a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint
- Seattle Sounders FC passes the quick fail criteria. The full review will be conducted soon. Mobile Snail 15:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Full review
Here we go...
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (
MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and
verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to
reliable sources): c (
OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the
neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have
fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail: Pass
- Pass/Fail:
- Comments
- All in all, this article is very well done and is very much deserving of a Good Article status.
- Therefore, I myself have passed the article, however I will be seeking a second opinion on the final decision.
Mobile
Snail
16:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- As per your request I have given the article a "once-over" and can't find any real faults; I'm generally impressed with the quality. I have noticed some minor flaws with spacing etc. so it would be worth runnning through the article briefly; I've ammended a couple myself.
MasterOfHisOwnDomain (
talk)
21:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since MobileSnail appears to be having a short wikibreak, with no contributions made in almost two weeks, I shall be passing the article so that there are no further delays. MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 07:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- As per your request I have given the article a "once-over" and can't find any real faults; I'm generally impressed with the quality. I have noticed some minor flaws with spacing etc. so it would be worth runnning through the article briefly; I've ammended a couple myself.
MasterOfHisOwnDomain (
talk)
21:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)