Talk:Costa Concordia disaster/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 10:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- References are verifiable and easily identifiable (also, 306 references?!?)
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- Inline citations are from verifiable sources
- c. (OR):
- Inline citations back up the article's text
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- The article
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- The article covers all relevant topics to the subject without straying into unnecessary detail
- b. (focused):
- The article does not stray into unnecessary detail about any particular subject
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- The article does not give undue weight to certain opinions or viewpoints
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit warring as far as I can see
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Article is illustrated to readers by images, such as maps, timelines and on-scene images
- b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Media have relevant and informative captions
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- I believe this article meets the good article criterion
- Pass/fail: