Talk:Juventus Next Gen/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AideDésintéressée (talk · contribs) 18:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I'll start the review tonight. The article looks good to me so I don't think it will take a long time. Hopefully, it may be done before tomorrow evening! AideDésintéressée (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- c. (OR):
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- b. (focused):
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- Pass/fail:
Assessment
[edit]@Wikipediæ philosophia @Nehme1499
The whole article seems very good and solid to me. I have no complaints except a few minor issues (reference for the stadium's capacity and staff members who were not cited) that I've just corrected myself but I can now promote this article to GA class. Congratulations and thank you both for your all your work. AideDésintéressée talk 19:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)