Talk:Modafinil/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: BeingObjective (talk · contribs) 19:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Planning to review: BeingObjective (talk)
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. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- 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:
- 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 non-free 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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
This article fails the GA requirements based largely on a very unclear target audience, and a prose style that is inconsistent. It reads in a confusing manner. This is especially the case in sections that are more technical in nature. BeingObjective (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review of the Wikipedia article about modafinil. I appreciate your time and effort in evaluating the article for the GA criteria. I am glad that you found the article to meet most of the criteria except for the clarity and conciseness of the prose and the focus and summary style of the topic.
- I understand that these are essential criteria for a GA article, and I would like to improve the article accordingly. However, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with more specific feedback and suggestions on how to do so. For example, could you please point out the exact sentences or paragraphs you think are unclear, confusing, or inconsistent in the prose? Could you also explain why you think they are problematic and how they could be improved? Similarly, could you please identify the sections or details that you feel are unnecessary or off-topic in the article? Could you also suggest how to summarize them or remove them without losing essential information or context?
- I am asking for these clarifications because I want to ensure that I understand your concerns and expectations and address them adequately in the article. I also want to avoid making any changes that might compromise the article's accuracy, completeness, or neutrality, which are also essential criteria for a GA article. I hope you can understand my request and help me improve the article.
- Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- @BeingObjective: Do you intend on finishing the review as described in Step 4 of the Reviewing process (WP:GAN/I#FAIL)? You wrote that the article failed criteria, but you didn't update the status of the review. That's why I asked on whether you intend to conclude (close) the review. Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- This review is invalid, and the nomination has been returned to the queue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Review invalidated
[edit]This review is invalidated by the reviewer's request due to lack of time to complete the review: