Talk:The Years of Rice and Salt/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 23:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

After some small grammatical modifications throughout the article, I believe its prose, as well as its compliance with MOS policies, are of acceptable quality. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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

Verifiable with no original research:

The article makes frequent citations to the sources used, the sources are neatly arranged and reliable, and there does not appear to be any original research incorporated. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) 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)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

There is no trivial or unneccessary information in the content, and the article thoroughly covers many important aspects of the topic. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Not counting what the cited critics say about the topic in the "Reception" section, the article is unbiased towards the topic, and thankfully does not "agree/disagree" with any of the comments cited in the aformentioned section. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The latest edits in the revision history give no evidence of an edit war having occurred in well over several months. If anything of the sort happened before that, it should be long ago enough that it doesn't matter to this review. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Of the two images in this article, one is fair-use and has a valid rationale and license provided. The other is a map visualizing the concepts portrayed in the topic, but not legally affiliated with the book itself; due to this I believe its license is also valid. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

With some minor modifications to grammar, upon the completion of this review, I am confident that this article qualifies for inclusion in the league of Language and Literature Good Articles. Congratulations! Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]