Jump to content

Talk:IMac G5/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion 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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Zippybonzo (talk | contribs) 09:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hopefully this is an interesting article to review :) As usual, I've added the boilerplate template I use to review, and further reviews or comments are encouraged. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 09:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zippybonzo just checking in to see if this is still in progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of, I'll try to finish it all tomorrow, I've been procrastinating and haven't got round to doing all the reference and MoS checks yet but I will tomorrow :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 20:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. 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:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
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.