Talk:Demining/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 16:10, 12 April 2019 (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.	Well-written, easy to understand, avoids jargon. There were a couple of minor typos which I corrected myself.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section effectively summarizes the article, especially the first few sentences. If I was going to be especially picky, I'd suggest adding something about the cost of demining to the third paragraph of the lead, in the sense of economic, time, and cost in lives, since those costs seem to be important aspects but are left out of the lead. No issues with layout, the article is well organized. No words to watch issues, fiction, or list incorporation.
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.	Article is well referenced. When performing spot checks of some of the referenced material, I found some of the citations less helpful, such as #66, which cites Kasban et al., 2010, pp. 89-112, which was the entire 24-page article, so it made that information difficult to verify. Did not find any instances of close paraphrasing from the sources I checked.
	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).	References are from reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is very comprehensive and did not leave me wondering about additional topics
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is concise.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I should have checked the article history before starting this to notice that is is still being actively developed, but the article is considered stable because it is not changing due to an edit war or content dispute, all changes are being made by one editor.
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.	All images are tagged with copyright status, no non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and help illustrate the topic
	7. Overall assessment.	Well-written article