GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Pax85 ( talk · contribs) 22:05, 5 September 2021 (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. | Overall, very well-written. I performed some light copyediting throughout. The article was informative and approachable. Some of the terminology can be a bit advanced for those without a background in the subject, but the linking and occasional explanatory clauses help to mitigate this. Well done! | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Good. No major issues with MOS. Layout matches the layout of some other related articles. | |
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. | List of references is thorough and well-formatted according to established guidelines. | |
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). | All references seem good, uncontroversial, and from well-established sources. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything is well-sourced and researched. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No apparent copyright violations present. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article structure reflects that of other similar articles, which helped to guide a thorough treatment of the subject. The article touches on the main topics that may be of interest to the casual reader. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Overall, the article stays on topic. In the copyedit process, I did make some changes that should be reviewed. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Everything seems neutral, with no bias present. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit warring present. The article is well-established. Recent edits include changes brought resulting from GA1. | |
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. | All images from Commons. All appropriately tagged and attributed. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | A nice variety of images with simple captions. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
|
M.s.w.lee: We will conduct the new review on this page. I'll try not to rehash anything that has already been addressed in the previous review. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask any time! - Pax Verbum 22:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Ref. 10 is the same article that you provided so I replaced Ref. 24 with Ref. 10 M.s.w.lee ( talk) 19:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
This was a miscitation the information is in Ref. 10 deleted Ref. 29 and replaced with Ref. 10 M.s.w.lee ( talk) 19:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: As I work through the article, I will place particular comments here under the corresponding section, sometimes grouping sections as I find time to look them over. I will probably do a bit of light copyediting on the way as well.
Items in bold need to be addressed directly.
Lead
deleted the last couple of sentences M.s.w.lee ( talk) 19:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Body
It looks good! Thanks for restructuring the section and improving its readability! M.s.w.lee ( talk) 20:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Pax85 ( talk · contribs) 22:05, 5 September 2021 (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. | Overall, very well-written. I performed some light copyediting throughout. The article was informative and approachable. Some of the terminology can be a bit advanced for those without a background in the subject, but the linking and occasional explanatory clauses help to mitigate this. Well done! | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Good. No major issues with MOS. Layout matches the layout of some other related articles. | |
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. | List of references is thorough and well-formatted according to established guidelines. | |
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). | All references seem good, uncontroversial, and from well-established sources. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything is well-sourced and researched. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No apparent copyright violations present. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article structure reflects that of other similar articles, which helped to guide a thorough treatment of the subject. The article touches on the main topics that may be of interest to the casual reader. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Overall, the article stays on topic. In the copyedit process, I did make some changes that should be reviewed. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Everything seems neutral, with no bias present. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit warring present. The article is well-established. Recent edits include changes brought resulting from GA1. | |
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. | All images from Commons. All appropriately tagged and attributed. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | A nice variety of images with simple captions. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
|
M.s.w.lee: We will conduct the new review on this page. I'll try not to rehash anything that has already been addressed in the previous review. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask any time! - Pax Verbum 22:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Ref. 10 is the same article that you provided so I replaced Ref. 24 with Ref. 10 M.s.w.lee ( talk) 19:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
This was a miscitation the information is in Ref. 10 deleted Ref. 29 and replaced with Ref. 10 M.s.w.lee ( talk) 19:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: As I work through the article, I will place particular comments here under the corresponding section, sometimes grouping sections as I find time to look them over. I will probably do a bit of light copyediting on the way as well.
Items in bold need to be addressed directly.
Lead
deleted the last couple of sentences M.s.w.lee ( talk) 19:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Body
It looks good! Thanks for restructuring the section and improving its readability! M.s.w.lee ( talk) 20:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)