GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Stedil ( talk · contribs) 19:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings! I will be reviewing this article. I am currently completing my initial reading/minor copyediting, and will present my initial impressions below.
Stedil (
talk)
19:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll put general thoughts in the table organized by criteria, then get into specifics below, which, when addressed, will qualify the article for GA status. Stedil ( talk) 21:29, 30 December 2017 (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. | Some minor spelling/grammar mistakes that I corrected as I reviewed. Some awkward phrases, see below. Update: issues fixed. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | one or two minor words to watch, see below. update: issues have been addressed. |
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. | references formatted correctly. |
![]() |
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). | one or two sections which could be better referenced, see below. update: issues have been addressed. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything is properly sourced. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Wording in a few places is a little too similar to the sources, see below. update: issues have been addressed. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Article is very thorough in its coverage. Nice work! |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Text is concise where needed, and expands to cover the topic as appropriate. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | related to "Words to watch" above, just a few phrases that appear a little promotional. See below. update: issues have been addressed. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | no edit wars present. |
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. | Only one image. Contains fair use rationale, which appears valid as far as I am aware. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Only photo is a studio portrait. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Just a few minor tweaks, as noted below, and I'll pass it. Nice work! update: There are still a few small things (see final updates below) that I think will improve the article, but I realize the impetus to fix these issues isn't there. After tidying up, I've decided to go ahead and pass the article. |
That concludes my first round of reviewing. Once you address each of the concerns above, I'll double check to make sure everything is in order, then pass the article. Stedil ( talk) 23:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Patar knight: In the interest of moving the review along, I've posted the current status of specific items in the review with the tag "update." Stedil ( talk) 00:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Patar knight: I decided it was time to bring this review to a close. After examining the article as it currently stands, I think the changes made are sufficient to bring the article to GA status. There are still two aspects (see "final updates") that I think will improve the article, if you can find the time to access more sources. Stedil ( talk) 16:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Stedil ( talk · contribs) 19:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings! I will be reviewing this article. I am currently completing my initial reading/minor copyediting, and will present my initial impressions below.
Stedil (
talk)
19:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll put general thoughts in the table organized by criteria, then get into specifics below, which, when addressed, will qualify the article for GA status. Stedil ( talk) 21:29, 30 December 2017 (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. | Some minor spelling/grammar mistakes that I corrected as I reviewed. Some awkward phrases, see below. Update: issues fixed. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | one or two minor words to watch, see below. update: issues have been addressed. |
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. | references formatted correctly. |
![]() |
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). | one or two sections which could be better referenced, see below. update: issues have been addressed. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything is properly sourced. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Wording in a few places is a little too similar to the sources, see below. update: issues have been addressed. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Article is very thorough in its coverage. Nice work! |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Text is concise where needed, and expands to cover the topic as appropriate. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | related to "Words to watch" above, just a few phrases that appear a little promotional. See below. update: issues have been addressed. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | no edit wars present. |
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. | Only one image. Contains fair use rationale, which appears valid as far as I am aware. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Only photo is a studio portrait. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Just a few minor tweaks, as noted below, and I'll pass it. Nice work! update: There are still a few small things (see final updates below) that I think will improve the article, but I realize the impetus to fix these issues isn't there. After tidying up, I've decided to go ahead and pass the article. |
That concludes my first round of reviewing. Once you address each of the concerns above, I'll double check to make sure everything is in order, then pass the article. Stedil ( talk) 23:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Patar knight: In the interest of moving the review along, I've posted the current status of specific items in the review with the tag "update." Stedil ( talk) 00:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Patar knight: I decided it was time to bring this review to a close. After examining the article as it currently stands, I think the changes made are sufficient to bring the article to GA status. There are still two aspects (see "final updates") that I think will improve the article, if you can find the time to access more sources. Stedil ( talk) 16:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)