GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Antidiskriminator ( talk · contribs) 19:39, 16 August 2014 (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. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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. | ||
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Per WP:RGA, the article have serious issues with sources. Precisely the main source is travel agency website. On top of this, there is probably a serious issue with close paraphrasing or copyright violation because significant portions of the text are simply copied from this agency's website. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 19:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC) |
-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 19:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Are there any errors or text that needs improvement mate? elmasmelih 09:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Source - I am concerned about sources used in this article, in particular about http://www.bluemosque.co/. Here is what concerns me:
I would like to hear opinion of nominator ( Elmasmelih) about my above remarks before I decide if this article should be failed without further review.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 19:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand your concerns mate. How long will you give me to fix these issues? elmasmelih 18:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Antidiskriminator ( talk · contribs) 19:39, 16 August 2014 (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. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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. | ||
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Per WP:RGA, the article have serious issues with sources. Precisely the main source is travel agency website. On top of this, there is probably a serious issue with close paraphrasing or copyright violation because significant portions of the text are simply copied from this agency's website. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 19:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC) |
-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 19:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Are there any errors or text that needs improvement mate? elmasmelih 09:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Source - I am concerned about sources used in this article, in particular about http://www.bluemosque.co/. Here is what concerns me:
I would like to hear opinion of nominator ( Elmasmelih) about my above remarks before I decide if this article should be failed without further review.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 19:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand your concerns mate. How long will you give me to fix these issues? elmasmelih 18:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)