Talk:Hoosier cabinet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figfires (talk · contribs) 16:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and concise, does not go into unnecessary detail in any of the sections. The prose is a decent length and is not tiring to read. No spelling mistakes from what I saw. I fixed a minor grammar issue and a sentence that had some problems. Other than that, the prose is just fine.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Has a good lead section that provides background information on the topic. I did not see any issues with the layout, words to watch, or list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	A list of references appears at the bottom of the page along with citations. The citations are appropriately displayed throughout the article
	2b. 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).	All in-line citations appear to be from reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I did not see any original research in the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	All content requiring licenses/copyrights has them and I did not detect any plagiarism
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All of the main aspects of the article are appropriately addressed in their respective sections.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article does not go into unnecessary details anywhere.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article does not have any issues with neutrality or tone.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars or content disputes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images have their licensing/copyright present.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions
	7. Overall assessment.	This article had only minor issues with grammar and sentence structure which I have since fixed. The prose was descriptive and to the point. The article didn't go into unnecessary details. There were no issues with the neutrality. Overall, a well rounded article. This article has officially passed the GA review and is now a Good Article. The only suggestion I have is that articles be made and linked (to the sections here) for some of the major manufactures if there is enough information.