Talk:1960 Winter Olympics/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dom497 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- The article is easy to read (as in it is clear) and the 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:
- Complies with the the manual of style guidelines.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Never mind
- 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):
- Never mind
- C. It contains no original research:
- No sign of original research.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- All the important stuff seems to be covered in the article
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Everything seems to stay on topic
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Everything looks stable
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Images are properly tagged
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Images are where they are supposed to be and captions "agree" with photos.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Just dropping in, leads are not supposed to have references unless quotes or controversial BLP statements are in the lead, so the article's fine in that regard. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Ryan Vesey
This is ridiculous. WP:LEADCITE makes it clear that inline citations are only necessary in the lead if it is a BLP. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Passed the article because everything else is fine.--Dom497 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wonderful! Thank you for your review. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Passed the article because everything else is fine.--Dom497 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)