Talk:Skeptic's Toolbox/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

 Comment: On sources: WP:SPS and WP:BIASED. On coverage, reads like a promotional pamphlet. Section on faculty, long list taking most of the article, and use of too many images at bottom unnecessarily would not pass GAN if nominated nowadays.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

No comments from other editors, closing as fail. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)