Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Starting review. Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This review will address the following criteria:
Well-written: (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. [1]
Verifiable with no original research: (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; (b) 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); [2] and (c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; [3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
images,
video, or
audio:
[5]
(a) media are
tagged with their
copyright statuses, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content; and
(b) media are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions.
[6]
Checking against GA criteria
Just the broken link and Themes section need to be addressed. Jezhotwells ( talk) 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think it meets the criteria, but that doesn't mean that it can't be improved. Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Starting review. Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This review will address the following criteria:
Well-written: (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. [1]
Verifiable with no original research: (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; (b) 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); [2] and (c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; [3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
images,
video, or
audio:
[5]
(a) media are
tagged with their
copyright statuses, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content; and
(b) media are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions.
[6]
Checking against GA criteria
Just the broken link and Themes section need to be addressed. Jezhotwells ( talk) 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think it meets the criteria, but that doesn't mean that it can't be improved. Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)