Talk:History of agriculture/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DrStrauss (talk · contribs) 15:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
DrStrauss talk 15:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing approval by novice reviewer

This was one of seven reviews posted within a 40 minute period. None of them were complete reviews; as the reviewer noted on his or her talk page, I didn't realise that GA was such a refined endeavour, rather just a sort of stamp.

The article still needs to be given a thorough review by a knowledgeable reviewer, so it has been put back into the reviewing pool. Any subsequent review will be done on a different review page. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]