From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Surface Mini/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg ( talk · contribs) 21:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello I will be reviewing this article. Expect comments soon. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 21:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

General comments

  • No pictures. While it is encouraged, it is technically not required. I would see if its possible to acquire an image via WP:NFCC.
  • All references seem reliable.
  • Copyvio check came back clean
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:

· · ·

Discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Surface Mini/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg ( talk · contribs) 21:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello I will be reviewing this article. Expect comments soon. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 21:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

General comments

  • No pictures. While it is encouraged, it is technically not required. I would see if its possible to acquire an image via WP:NFCC.
  • All references seem reliable.
  • Copyvio check came back clean
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:

· · ·

Discussion


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook