Talk:Kadmat Island/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs) 15:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nvvchar and Dr. Blofeld: I will be doing the GA review for this article. Below is my preliminary review.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Comment on the criteria item here, would the article pass/fail if no changes were to be made. If fail; how could the problem be rectified, and is it reasonable to let the review continue prior to the problem being fixed. If it cannot realistically be fixed during the nomination review, quick fail. Refer to comments below, one thing need addressing and will affect any review of 1a.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and 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.	Harv error shows for Ref #7 (i.e. "The lagoon on the western side of the island.") Green, Edmund Peter; Frederick T. Short (2003) that I think is easily fixable.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig verifies this confidence with a 12.3% reading - which turns out to be a book title only.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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 pictures are from Commons and have appropriate licenses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues have been addressed. It's good for passing for GA

Doug Coldwell Thanks for the review. If you are convinced that with the suggested corrections the article can be promoted to GA put it on hold till all the suggestions in the review are addressed by the authors. I have corrected the ref 7 which works now. Will be glad to address any other issues in the artcile.Nvvchar. 04:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nvvchar Thanks - I see all issues have been addressed and I am going to approve for GA today.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]