Talk:Buffalo nickel/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: —focus 03:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'll do this review. I'll try to have comments up in a few days.—focus 03:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks, will look forward to reading them.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a good article; just a few nitpicks:
- Intro
- Could you link 'Jefferson nickel' to here?
I just finished reading through the article, and I really can't find anything that would prevent it from being a GA, so I'm going to pass it. I've included a copy of the criteria below. Great work. —focus 18:35, 27 November 2010 (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:
- 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, 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:
- 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):
- 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 non-free 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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
