Talk:BASIC/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TheDragonFire (talk · contribs) 06:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Ideally, by the end of this process, all general citations will be converted into inline citations, and the notes sections will either be expanded or the two notes will be squashed into the body of the article.
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- As per above, this is difficult to verify without better sourcing.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Apart from one case of WP:CIRCULAR, Earwig's Copyvio Detector reports no issues.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- There seems to be a fair bit of editorialising, and inappropriate tone.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
@SurenaIVY: I'm sorry this is taking a while. If you're able to help address some of these issues, and those tagged in the article, that would be appreciated. TheDragonFire (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Given that the nominator's only edit was to nominate this, it's clear to me he's not coming back. That being said, none of the issues you addressed have been resolved, as this is still woefully underreferenced. As a result I'm failing this nom. Wizardman 23:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)