Talk:Tsing Yi North Coastal Road/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Oshwah (talk · contribs) 03:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Criteria
[edit]Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- 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) 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);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (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.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review
[edit]- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | The summary paragraph is clear with identifying the article subject and what it is, and makes a logical and well-done summary of the article body. |  Pass
|
| (b) (MoS) | The article looks to follow MOS. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | Yes, the article does this. | Pass
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | No issues with RS. | Pass
|
| (c) (original research) | The article does not appear to show signs of, nor include any original research. | Pass
|
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | No copyvio issues. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | Yes. All major aspects that a reasonable editor or reader would expect to find in a well-written and professional encyclopedia article appear to have been covered, and with meaningful details that are relevant to the article subject. | Pass
|
| (b) (focused) | The article remains focused on the main article subject and while providing decent and reasonable coverage on necessary subjects that are relevant to the article subject. | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| Yes. The article certainly doesn't appear to have WP:NPOV issues. | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The article's highest edit-per-day rate is definitely while it was being improved. No issues. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Yes. The only image here is self-owned and is tagged per policy. | Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | No issues here. Looks good to me. | Pass
|
Result
[edit]| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Pass |
Passes all criterion stipulated above, and at WP:GA?. |
Discussion
[edit]Please add any related discussion here.
Additional notes
[edit]- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.