Talk:Peter the Patrician/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello! I am starting rewieving this! I think the articles has good chances. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
:(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]
:(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.
:(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).
:(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]
The article is not very long, but absolutely comprehensive enough for GA. I corrected one typo and in one instance made several shorter sentences out of one. Now it is perfectly understandable. It is a nice article, a very intersting topic and fun to read! PASSED! Buchraeumer (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- All right! Thanks for the review and the edits! Constantine ✍ 04:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ 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 constructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.