Talk:History of Burger King/GA2
October 2014 GA Review
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 | I'm closing this, the reviewer seems to have disappeared --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC) |
Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 19:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Criteria
[edit]Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (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]
- 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) 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.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (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).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [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]- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | The reviewer has no notes here. |  Undetermined
|
| (b) (MoS) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | The lead and part of 3G Capital require more references. |  On hold
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | There are some primary sources and unreliable sources such as Answers.com that should be fixed. | On hold
|
| (c) (original research) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| (b) (focused) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| This article is currently stable. |  Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | All images are properly used. | Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | All images and captions are suitable for the article. | Pass
|
Result
[edit]| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| On hold |
Please fix 2A and 2B. |
Discussion
[edit]Please add any related discussion here.
Additional notes
[edit]- ^ 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.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ 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.
Questions
[edit]Hello, and thanks for reviewing the article!
1. What parts of the 3G section need further references?
2. Since the article is about a non-controversial subject, the lead really shouldn't need citations. However, If you would, please tell me which parts you find problematic so I can reword them to better reflect the content of the article, or reword the sections they refer in order to better align the two.
3. I fixed the answers.com link.
--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I misread some things you fixed it.
- Comment: Jerem43, StudiesWorld, after two weeks without any activity here, it looks like the review has been abandoned. Due to lack of activity from either of you, I might end up closing this review as unsuccessful. I'll check back in a few days and if there's been no progress, I will likely fail it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm closing this as unsuccessful due to lack of activity from both the reviewer AND nominator. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me? I have been bugging this guy for two+ weeks, trying to get him to respond. Instead of closing, why don't you take this over. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Since he's already left comments, it's probably best to start over with a new nomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- start it over. This second nomination sat for at least three months and I would like not to wait another three or four. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.