GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: – Quadell ( talk) 13:45, 8 July 2011 (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. | Prose is generally excellent. Clear and easy to read. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead is excellent, the article is well organized into sections, the use of an infobox is appropriate. All MoS guidelines appear to be followed to a T. (It's almost as if you've written this kind of article before!) |
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. | Sources are well-formatted and extremely well organized. |
![]() |
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). | The sources are great: thorough and comprehensive. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No problems found. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All major questions answered. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No problems with rambling or diversions. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems found. Where there is disagreement, footnotes show all viewpoints thoroughly. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Not an issue at this time. |
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. | Sadly, there are no free images available at this time. However, multiple attempts are currently open, and images will probably be available in the future. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | See above. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Informative and well-organized, meets all requirements. |
And thank you for reviewing the article and the improvements you made! Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: – Quadell ( talk) 13:45, 8 July 2011 (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. | Prose is generally excellent. Clear and easy to read. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead is excellent, the article is well organized into sections, the use of an infobox is appropriate. All MoS guidelines appear to be followed to a T. (It's almost as if you've written this kind of article before!) |
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. | Sources are well-formatted and extremely well organized. |
![]() |
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). | The sources are great: thorough and comprehensive. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No problems found. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All major questions answered. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No problems with rambling or diversions. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems found. Where there is disagreement, footnotes show all viewpoints thoroughly. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Not an issue at this time. |
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. | Sadly, there are no free images available at this time. However, multiple attempts are currently open, and images will probably be available in the future. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | See above. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Informative and well-organized, meets all requirements. |
And thank you for reviewing the article and the improvements you made! Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)