Jump to content

Talk:Empathy gap

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Empathy gap/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 02:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next week. @Cats n boots: I see you created this article as part of a WikiEd class - welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for writing this article! Could you confirm that you are still around and able to respond to comments during this review? Ganesha811 (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cats n boots: please confirm whether you're available to respond to comments. Otherwise, I will have to close the review after 48 hours. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully failing for now - nominator does not appear to be active on Wikipedia. Happy to re-open if that changes in the future. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and 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.
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).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.