Talk:2004 Masters (snooker)/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: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 04:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey, this looks like a wonderful article. Kindly feel free to revert any changes/mistakes I make as I review this article! 
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, 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:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no 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:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- 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:
- 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- @Adityavagarwal: Almost three weeks have passed and with no comments on the article. What is the status of the review? MWright96 (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- If this one does go on, I don't mind taking over if it goes into the darkness. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- MWright96 I got really busy lately, but give me two to three days and I shall complete it. Thank you so much Lee Vilenski for offering help in completing the review, but I would try doing it in two to three days and if I would not be able to, I would let you know! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- No problem! Glad to see you back. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski Hey, I would not be able to complete this, so could you do this and Talk:Macdonald seamount/GA1? It would be a great help!
Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski Hey, I would not be able to complete this, so could you do this and Talk:Macdonald seamount/GA1? It would be a great help!
- No problem! Glad to see you back. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
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.