Talk:Highland and Island Emigration Society/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Newbiepedian (talk · contribs) 00:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Summary
[edit]Article has some serious basic issues which I've tagged it for, including basic punctuation problems (spaces between ref tags and punctuation and/or other ref tags). Its layout is inappropriate, containing way too many quotes and absolutely no images. It also violates NPOV. Section headers are inappropriate. All in all, this article just isn't encyclopedic, and a long way off from reaching GA status (WP:SNOW, basically). To end on a positive note, though, the references are all there and seem to check out. It should be good to go after substantial cleanup and finding some relevant images.
Checklist
[edit]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:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- 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:
- 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:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- 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:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
After discussion with the reviewer, the neutrality of the article is no longer in dispute. See extract of conversation below: Camerojo (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Y'know, going through it I just collated problems by category of problem, and neglected to realise that there was only a single NPOV problem in the article, which I've now gone and amended. It was the description of the history of the Highland Clearances as "sad", which is a qualitative judgment, and therefore not NPOV. I've removed the word "sad" and un-tagged the article for NPOV. Hope that helps!--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 23:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)