Talk:All Nippon Airways/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 01:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this excellent article! I do my GA reviews with one main review then with prose and source reviews to make sure the article is suitable for GA status! Example: This GA --Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 01:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	More will be covered in the prose review. From a glance it looks okay.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead is a good length, good layout, no weasel words, etc.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All/most information is properly cited, however, according to this page ..."citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article..."
	2b. 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).	Citations are good, no citations would be considered challengable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Will check this in the source review
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Doesn't go into too much detail on anything specifically, it is covering the main aspects of ANA.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good article size, good lead like I mentioned earlier.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not biased because it is an airline article anyways.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars, conflict wars, etc. Good job!
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	This image may have an issue as the Pokemon themselves are copyright? You may have to remove this picture from the article. All other pictures are great!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The pictures are relevant to ANA and they are described correctly.
	7. Overall assessment.	See comments in the 2a and 6a rows. Also, see below for prose and source reviews.

Prose Review

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use Y or Done If the change was only partially done use Y, and N or Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

Source Review

Technically dead links don't have to be fixed in GA or FA but I'd think fixing them would help the article become better. Refs 3, 18, 23, 24, 39, 40, 51, 54, 57, 62, 71, 73, 80, 81, 89, 99, and 100 are all dead. If you have the time, you can delete these refs, update them, or delete them and delete the information these refs are cited with.

FYI: I will be passing the "sourcing" part of this GA because dead links are not required to be fixed according to this essay. Cheers! --Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 01:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC) https://naufalfz.my.id — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.0.138.189 (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Brandon (MrWooHoo), there's been no action here since you posted the above review on April 17. The nominator, whose name is now Kai Tak, has not edited on Wikipedia since March 15, so it seems unlikely there will be any response. Certainly, none of the edits in the interim by other editors have addressed the issues raised. Under the circumstances, you may want to close the nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, thank you. I haven't been on Wikipedia much recently due to school. I will be closing the review soon... --Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 20:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]