Talk:Mahonri Young/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Rollidan (talk · contribs) 18:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I am excited to begin this review. Be aware that I am still beginning here at WP:GA, so it might take me a while to review it. Thank you for the nomination! Rollidan (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, @Rollidan:, are you still planning on reviewing the article? Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi! Yes I am. Thank you for reminding me! Rollidan (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- 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:
- 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:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Read through sources
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Concluding remarks: Thanks for your patience on this review. I will say that the article is quite good overall. I will definitely say it is not quite up to FA-level yet, but luckily GA doesn't need to be perfect, just good. I am in the process of closing the review. Rollidan (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)