Talk:Goofus and Gallant/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 17:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- In Reception, Claudia Mills and Harold Schechter should be introduced as "Author and philosophy professor" and "Author and professor of literature and pop culture" respectively.
Provide examples of some of the other philosophers mentioned in the last line of Other uses.
- In Reception, Claudia Mills and Harold Schechter should be introduced as "Author and philosophy professor" and "Author and professor of literature and pop culture" respectively.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- no concern
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- no concern
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- The entire first paragraph in History is sourced to two sources at the end. The citations should be split to make it clear which elements came from which source.
- C. It contains no original research:
- no concern
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Top earwig results are due to properly attributed quotes. AGF on the print sources.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- no concern
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- no concern
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- no concern
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- no concern
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- File:Goofus and Gallant - October 1980.jpg has two NFU rationales, each one says the image will "only be used" on one article, but they list different articles (this one and Highlights for Children). These need to be updated.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- no concern
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass pending minor corrections noted above.
- Thanks for the review Argento Surfer! I believe I've addressed all your concerns but please let me know if there's anything else you feel needs improvement. Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 18:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response, and nice work on this article. Pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review Argento Surfer! I believe I've addressed all your concerns but please let me know if there's anything else you feel needs improvement. Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 18:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Pass pending minor corrections noted above.
- Pass or Fail:
