GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: Ippantekina ( talk · contribs) 05:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: AskeeaeWiki ( talk · contribs) 00:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Ippantekina I don't have much planned on Wikipedia, so for the meanwhile, I'm gonna review a Taylor Swift album. I have little to no experience regarding Taylor Swift, which is why I try to avoid editing these articles since I am not experienced in this matter enough. I think I'll be able to give some reviews with the background in about an hour, but I believe it will take me a few days to really finish reviewing, as I don't want to rush it.
𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺,
00:22, 26 May 2024 (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, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
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. |
This is a pre-review, where I just look at some basic stuff such an copy violations.
Earwig results: Detected a "possible" violation with this article: [today.com/popculture/music/live-blog/taylor-swift-tortured-poets-department-live-updates-rcna148230] Not sure how to feel about this, as most of the "violations" are literally just repetitions of the song and album titles.
Authorship: Nominator has major contributions to the article. Pass.
"...2017 album Reputation based..." –> "...2017 album, Reputation, based..."
Sources 98, 99, 105, 139 and 141 should be archived
'Pass'
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: Ippantekina ( talk · contribs) 05:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: AskeeaeWiki ( talk · contribs) 00:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Ippantekina I don't have much planned on Wikipedia, so for the meanwhile, I'm gonna review a Taylor Swift album. I have little to no experience regarding Taylor Swift, which is why I try to avoid editing these articles since I am not experienced in this matter enough. I think I'll be able to give some reviews with the background in about an hour, but I believe it will take me a few days to really finish reviewing, as I don't want to rush it.
𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺,
00:22, 26 May 2024 (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, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
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. |
This is a pre-review, where I just look at some basic stuff such an copy violations.
Earwig results: Detected a "possible" violation with this article: [today.com/popculture/music/live-blog/taylor-swift-tortured-poets-department-live-updates-rcna148230] Not sure how to feel about this, as most of the "violations" are literally just repetitions of the song and album titles.
Authorship: Nominator has major contributions to the article. Pass.
"...2017 album Reputation based..." –> "...2017 album, Reputation, based..."
Sources 98, 99, 105, 139 and 141 should be archived
'Pass'