The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Oshwah ( talk · contribs) 03:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot :-)
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
03:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
A good article is—
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | The summary paragraph is clear with identifying the article subject and what it is, and makes a logical and well-done summary of the article body. |
![]() |
(b) (MoS) | The article looks to follow MOS. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (references) | Yes, the article does this. |
![]() |
(b) (citations to reliable sources) | No issues with RS. |
![]() |
(c) (original research) | The article does not appear to show signs of, nor include any original research. |
![]() |
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | No copyvio issues. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Yes. The article certainly doesn't appear to have WP:NPOV issues. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
The article's highest edit-per-day rate is definitely while it was being improved. No issues. |
![]() |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
![]() |
Passes all criterion stipulated above, and at WP:GA?. |
Please add any related discussion here.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Oshwah ( talk · contribs) 03:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot :-)
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
03:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
A good article is—
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | The summary paragraph is clear with identifying the article subject and what it is, and makes a logical and well-done summary of the article body. |
![]() |
(b) (MoS) | The article looks to follow MOS. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (references) | Yes, the article does this. |
![]() |
(b) (citations to reliable sources) | No issues with RS. |
![]() |
(c) (original research) | The article does not appear to show signs of, nor include any original research. |
![]() |
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | No copyvio issues. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Yes. The article certainly doesn't appear to have WP:NPOV issues. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
The article's highest edit-per-day rate is definitely while it was being improved. No issues. |
![]() |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
![]() |
Passes all criterion stipulated above, and at WP:GA?. |
Please add any related discussion here.