Talk:Laguna del Maule (volcano)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tisquesusa (talk · contribs) 03:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Excellent complete article, definitely GA
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Well written, perfect prose, grammar good
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- All very good
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Sources are linked and accessible, also sources where no subscription is needed are available and kept up-to-date
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- Perfect
- C. It contains no original research:
- No OR, just a good compilation of information that was already available but never this well summarised
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Nope
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Enough overview of the various themes
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- And also enough detail in the chosen chapters
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- No issues
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Nope
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- All ok
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Added some relevant ones, could be more added, but that's a personal taste
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- No doubt; another excellent article by Jo-Jo Eumereus, well written, complete, detailed, heavily referenced, interesting and just good
- Pass or Fail:
- Hum. @Tisquesusa: seems like the passing has not been registered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)