Talk:Galeon/GA2
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: WilliamThweatt (talk · contribs) 23:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This article has some considerable shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- There appear to be a few cited sources which are independent and reliable third party sources but sites like this and this appear to be just forums. See WP:Reliable Sources in general, and WP:USERG specifically.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- The whole article seems to be heavy on praise for the subject, the only criticism mentioned is a six word sentence at the end of the article. I'm sure there were critics and/or negative reviews by at least some.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- I wouldn't fail an GA nom solely for lack of images, but a web browser does have a visual component that could be represented by more that just a screenshot in the infobox
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- There is still quite a bit of work that needs to be done in the areas of copyediting and referencing to reliable, independent, third party sources. Good luck improving the article.
- Pass/Fail: