GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Jetstreamer ( talk · contribs) 18:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I'll start reviewing the article soon.-- Jetstreamer Talk 18:44, 5 December 2012 (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: | ||
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). | This section needs much more references; this another one has dead links. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Original research found here. | |
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. | I'm failing the nomination, as per the comments immediately below this table.-- Jetstreamer Talk 13:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC) |
Comment Jetstreamer, you understand that this review cannot take the five months that the last one (which was very similar to this one) did, correct? -- Rs chen 7754 09:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure I'll get yelled at for this, but I'm jumping and failing this GAN for multiple reasons. First, it's been three weeks and Compdude isn't addressing any of the concernsfrom the last two batches, despite clearly being on and editing. Second, there are a large number of tags on the article that should have been addressed before a GAN was started. Third, there are a lot of major additions being thrown in by users, affecting article stability. Fourth, just from a skim I can tell the article needs a lot of work, most of which Jetstreamer has noted so far, but this is not near even GAN level, let alone GA. Lastly, the last review took five months, and honestly, that was in much better shape than this article is. This one would take an extra few months on top of the time invested. Jetstreamer is more than welcome to continue reviewing the article, but it shuld be outside of the GAN process for the time being. If there's a problem then ask on the GAN talk page, I'm standing firm in this decision. Wizardman 23:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I won't fail the nomination for now, but this section is in bad need of more references. More review to come.-- Jetstreamer Talk 03:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you please try and finish reviewing ASAP? I'm going to be more busy next week, and will have less time to address your concerns. Thanks, Comp dude 123 01:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll be continuing with this tomorow...-- Jetstreamer Talk 03:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Only two of the airlines mentioned are provided with references, one of them being dead.
Overall, there are unsourced statementes that need to be fixed. My main concern here is that, being the airline one of the largest worldwide, the sub-section is slanted towards the last years. I will require considerable expansion for the section, mostly considering that United Airlines destinations and United Express destinations limit to list the destinations (the later being almost unsourced at all).-- Jetstreamer Talk 22:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Jetstreamer ( talk · contribs) 18:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I'll start reviewing the article soon.-- Jetstreamer Talk 18:44, 5 December 2012 (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: | ||
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). | This section needs much more references; this another one has dead links. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Original research found here. | |
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. | I'm failing the nomination, as per the comments immediately below this table.-- Jetstreamer Talk 13:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC) |
Comment Jetstreamer, you understand that this review cannot take the five months that the last one (which was very similar to this one) did, correct? -- Rs chen 7754 09:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure I'll get yelled at for this, but I'm jumping and failing this GAN for multiple reasons. First, it's been three weeks and Compdude isn't addressing any of the concernsfrom the last two batches, despite clearly being on and editing. Second, there are a large number of tags on the article that should have been addressed before a GAN was started. Third, there are a lot of major additions being thrown in by users, affecting article stability. Fourth, just from a skim I can tell the article needs a lot of work, most of which Jetstreamer has noted so far, but this is not near even GAN level, let alone GA. Lastly, the last review took five months, and honestly, that was in much better shape than this article is. This one would take an extra few months on top of the time invested. Jetstreamer is more than welcome to continue reviewing the article, but it shuld be outside of the GAN process for the time being. If there's a problem then ask on the GAN talk page, I'm standing firm in this decision. Wizardman 23:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I won't fail the nomination for now, but this section is in bad need of more references. More review to come.-- Jetstreamer Talk 03:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you please try and finish reviewing ASAP? I'm going to be more busy next week, and will have less time to address your concerns. Thanks, Comp dude 123 01:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll be continuing with this tomorow...-- Jetstreamer Talk 03:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Only two of the airlines mentioned are provided with references, one of them being dead.
Overall, there are unsourced statementes that need to be fixed. My main concern here is that, being the airline one of the largest worldwide, the sub-section is slanted towards the last years. I will require considerable expansion for the section, mostly considering that United Airlines destinations and United Express destinations limit to list the destinations (the later being almost unsourced at all).-- Jetstreamer Talk 22:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)