Jump to content

Talk:Founding of Moldavia/GA2

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Samtar (talk · contribs) 10:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) 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. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Passing. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Meets 1b criteria. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Good, clear list of references. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Reliable inline citations. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Article is free of any OS. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Article covers the main aspects of the topic. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Passing Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    No detectable bias is present in the article. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Article is stable and does not change significantly from day to day. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Images meet 6a criteria. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Article contains eight appropriate images with informative captions. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass I've passed this review per the improvements made.

Discussion

[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.


Samtar, thank you for your thorough and bold review. I must apologize but I need more time to address all the issues above because I am quite busy in real life. Could you give me one more week (till 29 November)? Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: I can try, I don't think a bot will clear up after seven days. Also, as a side note, there seems to be a little bit of a content dispute going on? samtar {t} 16:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved material across from the sandbox, with the apparent endorsement of Borsoka (below). I'm hoping that interested editors will perform some cleanup before the deadline for the assessment. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 22:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
checkYI believe that the material that I have incorporated both achieves conciseness and satisfies the requests regarding territorial description and origins of the Romanians. User:HopsonRoad 22:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that after the review, the name of the article should be changed to Founding of Moldavia, per discussion. User:HopsonRoad 22:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HopsonRoad, thank you for your hard work to improve the article. I highly appreciate your contribution. samtar, thank you for your bold review and understanding. I wish you both a beautiful week! I am planning to read the article again and to make some minor changes if I think it is necessary. Please feel free to modify my edits. Borsoka (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Founding_of_Moldavia/GA2&oldid=1145828614"