From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article (
|
visual edit |
history ) ·
Article talk (
|
history ) ·
Watch
Reviewer:
CR4ZE (
talk ·
contribs )
15:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
If I'm
taking on the main article, it makes sense that I'd continue with a review of this sub-article as well. I'll get comments to you on this after I'm finished there.
CR 4ZE (
t •
c )
15:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
Thanks,
CR4ZE ! Are you still able to take this one on? –
Rhain
☔
23:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
This might be time to get a second opinion since the original nominator has not edited since December.
GamerPro64
17:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
I'll take over from here on out.
Lord Sjones23 (
talk -
contributions )
07:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
Here are my thoughts.
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 :
I think it looks good to me. It's a pass. Good work.
Lord Sjones23 (
talk -
contributions )
06:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
reply