Jump to content

Talk:Keymaker/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Quick fail criteria assessment[reply]

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No obvious problems with quick fail criteria. Proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    Examples: Wachowski brothers should be preceded by the- thus the Wachowski brothers. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The keys are already mentioned suggest something like the concept of the keys had been introduced....' Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seraph informs that the code is hidden Clumsy, bad grammar. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These are just some examples, I am sorry but most paragraphs are flawed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • Many of the references are to non reliable sources.
    c (OR):
    • I don't think there is evidence of OR
  3. It is broad in its scope. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: