From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sjones23 ( talk · contribs) 04:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply


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):
    While the lead looks good, it should be at least three to four paragraphs since the page has 49,610 characters as per WP:LEADLENGTH.
    •  Done. Split into four paragraphs, and organized better.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
    While all dead citations should be archived, we should also add archives for live ones as well. When I ran Earwig's copyvio machine, there was at least 73.3%% confidence that it could be a copyvio from this source, but I could be wrong.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a ( major aspects): b ( focused):
    No problems here.
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I don't see any neutrality problems here.
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit wars or content disputes.
  5. 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):
    The images look good to me.
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I'm placing this review on hold for now. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply