Jump to content

Talk:Krake/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: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 21:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC) I have had good experiences with Operation B&M. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) See below. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) See below. Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Excellent. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Superb. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) None. Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Absolutely. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Very much so. Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Yes. Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    Seems to be stable. Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Yes. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Passes here. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass A quality nomination.

Discussion

[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

Lead & Infobox
[edit]

Fine here.

History
[edit]

Pass.

Ride experience
[edit]

Please convert 700 tons into metric tons.

Tried to use the convert template but I can't figure out what parameters to use (do you know?).--Dom497 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been done. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, the trains for the roller coaster were manufactured in Switzerland." Is it possible to determine the company of origin as well?

I could be B&M themselves but its hard to know for sure...there is no reliable sources that gives an specifics.--Dom497 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
[edit]

Fine here.

Conclusion
[edit]

All in all, this is a GA quality article. A few issues need to be mitigated; once this is done, I will pass this article. Congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.