GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 04:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 ( talk) 04:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:
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. | See comments |
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. | See comments |
![]() |
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. | See comments |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | See comments |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | See comments |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | See comments |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | See comments |
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. |
Thanks Darkness Shines for your edits to this article, and I apologise for the shockingly long time it's take for this article to be reviewed. Some provisional comments:
Some small issues comments:
I would be happy to discuss these issues with you, and given the extremely long time you have had to wait for a review, would be happy to wait for your reply (will close review on December 27th of no reply recieved). Kind regards, -- LT910001 ( talk) 07:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, all other issues aside, I do not think that this article meets the neutrality criteria of the GA review. I have therefore asked for a second opinion. -- LT910001 ( talk) 14:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm summarily failing this review. As stated above, this article does not meet the neutrality or verifiability criteria, and this is from two reviews. Additionally, I refuse to continue any review when such an adversarial tone is used. I encourage renomination when the issues above have been addressed. I wish you all the best in future nominations, -- LT910001 ( talk) 03:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 04:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 ( talk) 04:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:
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. | See comments |
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. | See comments |
![]() |
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. | See comments |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | See comments |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | See comments |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | See comments |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | See comments |
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. |
Thanks Darkness Shines for your edits to this article, and I apologise for the shockingly long time it's take for this article to be reviewed. Some provisional comments:
Some small issues comments:
I would be happy to discuss these issues with you, and given the extremely long time you have had to wait for a review, would be happy to wait for your reply (will close review on December 27th of no reply recieved). Kind regards, -- LT910001 ( talk) 07:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, all other issues aside, I do not think that this article meets the neutrality criteria of the GA review. I have therefore asked for a second opinion. -- LT910001 ( talk) 14:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm summarily failing this review. As stated above, this article does not meet the neutrality or verifiability criteria, and this is from two reviews. Additionally, I refuse to continue any review when such an adversarial tone is used. I encourage renomination when the issues above have been addressed. I wish you all the best in future nominations, -- LT910001 ( talk) 03:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)