Talk:IB Diploma Programme/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Very well written. No major issues.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The lead is a bit abrupt for an article of this length and detail. It should be expanded to better summarize the article. As a rule, each section should be mentioned in some way.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- No issues.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well cited.
- C. No original research:
- No issues.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Seems very comprehensive.
- B. Focused:
- No issues.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Neutral point of view
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No issues.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
File:IB Diploma Programme hexagon.svg may be a problem. If it is a derivative of a copyrighted work, it is not free. How closely does this reproduction resemble the original?
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- More images are always nice, but in this case probably too much to ask for.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- A nicely written and well-researched article.
With some expansion of the lead and resolution of the one image issue cited, this will easily meet the GA criteria. I will put the nomination on hold while these issues are addressed.Clearly meets the GA criteria. Well done!
- A nicely written and well-researched article.
- Pass or Fail:
- Thanks for the review. I actually thought I'd deleted it from WP:GAN, and haven't done any work on it. This is the product of a number of editors; is it possible to add co-noms?
- I've deleted the image. Will work on the lead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I saw it on the backlog and it seemed a shame to let such a nice article just sit there and fester. I am sure it is possible to add co-nominators. I think a note here might be sufficient. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)