Talk:San Francisco Bay Area/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 19:48, 24 October 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:
- 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:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- The copyvio tool brought a few links I'm going to have to read more closely before checking this off. As one (largely harmless) example, the two sentences on burrowing owls are fairly closely paraphrased from [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- [2] is also a fairly close paraphrasing in the bird section. The other matches were false-positives, either for correctly-referenced direct quotes or from using phrases like "the San Francisco Bay Area" a lot. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- This is fine after updates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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:
- 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.
- Pass or Fail:
Thank you for your review! I've rewritten the sections on the burrowing owl and bald eagles so that it shouldn't be copyvios anymore. I tried running Earwig's tool but either my internet is not working or is very slow, but nothing is showing up. Let me know if you see any other potential copyvios! --haha169 (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- The tool is very slow at best, it took over a minute to run for me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)