Talk:Epacris impressa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 02:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

The article looks to comply with MoS policies on prose, grammar, and structure. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses a very healthy and extensive list of published third-party sources. It does not look as though any original research has been incorporated. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(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

Broad in its coverage:

The article is very broad in its coverage; extensive but not excessive detail is applied to all encyclopedic aspects of the subject. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article shows no bias towards or against the topic covered. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

No sign of any edit warring taking place in the past couple of years, as evidenced in the revision history. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The article is well-illustrated with relevant images, all of which are appropriately licensed. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Errrr, Wilhelmina Will....yoo hooo......cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it slipped my mind. I'll get back to this either today or tomorrow. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no worries. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the long wait, but I'm pleased to say that my review of the article brings me to the conclusion that it satisfies the GA criteria. Congratulations!!! Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - thanks for the review! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]