Talk:Cross-country skiing/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Luxure (talk · contribs) 12:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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.	No problems here.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No glaring (obvious) issues.
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.	Y Could benefit from extra references, however references are provided are quite accurate, reliable and uncontroversial. Dead links fixed, does not really need extra references.
	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).	No issues here, see 2a
	2c. it contains no original research.	Y Hard to ascertain, however references provided may cover the large blocks of information (no copyright issues). However, IP's and un-autoconfirmed accounts may have added incorrect information, however there does not seem to be any glaring issues Fixed, as described below.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes, adequate description for different variants of skiing
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars, also see 2c
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.	No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There may be a little to much, however it suits the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	✓ Pass Article sufficiently meets criteria above.

Reviewer's comments:

1. The article is well-written and adheres to basically everything
2. It could however benefit from extra references, which will weed out possible original research. Please see my comments at 2a and 2c.
3. There may just a bit too many images? This may just be nitpicking
4. There are 4 dead links, (7, 15, 34 and 44), and the article needs more references
   1. Just one dead link (34), however, not really an issue considering quality of references.
5. I am currently leaning towards a yes.
6. I will press yes on 3 July if no other editors oppose. (Just going to wait for the GA Cup to begin, so reviewers participating, if they want, have a say)
7. Y Article has sufficiently satisfied criteria.

Cheers, Luxure Σ 12:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence in reviewing this article, Luxure. I've repaired links, as cited above. The image gallery is designed to supplement the core aspects of the activity (history, types of grooming at ski areas, disabled skiing, skijoring), but if you feel there are one or more redundant images, you could suggest which ones ought to go. As to the adequacy of citations, it would be helpful to know where you feel they are thin—I can attempt to provide more belt and suspenders there. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem! The images suit the article so they can stay. Citations after you fixed the dead ones are not really required anymore. Luxure Σ 02:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)