Jump to content

Talk:Imagining Mars: A Literary History/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 09:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'd like to take up this review; I should be able to get some comments through in a few days. Frzzltalk;contribs 09:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing Frzzltalk;contribs 10:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Contents list is well done, article follows MOS well. One thing to ask - is every redlink here warranted? There sure are a lot... If (this article is excellently written) I have any points to raise on prose, they'll be listed below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Refs are formatted just fine, earwig comes up with 31%, pretty much just quotations from reviews. No evidence of OR found
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Article is focused, everything looks fine here.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    From my reading, the coverage/balance of reviews is fair; looks NPOV to me.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    no signs of an edit war, looks fine
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Only image is fair use, no probs
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Spotchecks

[edit]

Sources I've checked - 1, 2 (got hold of it through my own library), 9, 10, 13. Green tickY happy that this article is well sourced.

Points

[edit]

@TompaDompa:

That's it - this is the best written GAN I've ever seen :D