Jump to content

Talk:Pythagorean tiling/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: Tessaract2 (talk · contribs) 17:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I am currently reviewing this or am not at the computer.Almost done! However, I need a second opinion on the copyvio report. Thanks User:David Eppstein for the info! (See below.) Tessaract2Talk 17:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

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]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (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]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (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).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [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) Very concise, no grammar issues Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Seems to pas the Mos well enough. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Includes in-line and a list at bottom Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Sources cited seem reliable. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Sources are not origional recearch. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The copyvio check failed, but's it's a reverse situation. See below. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Covers major aspects of the topic. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Does not go into too much detail from what I could tell. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Meets NPOV, and not sure how it couldn't. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Most edits made today are by the same user. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images are in Creative Commons or public domain. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Well used and well captioned. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass After followup on a talk page comment I made (see below) I can safely say this is a pass!

Discussion

[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

So the copyvio detector has an over 75% confidence, but it seems like coincidencebasic info that is needed anyways for most of it. I need another opinion here. Tessaract2Talk 18:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Eppstein has told me that it's a reverse-copy situation after I commented on his talk page about it. I think this might end up being a pass! Tessaract2Talk 19:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tessaract2: Thanks! Is there anything more you're waiting on from me before completing the review (WP:GA/REV, Step 4)? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: I'm all done. I don't know how to close it though. Do I have to do anything after marking it as passed?Never mind.

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pythagorean_tiling/GA1&oldid=1038142966"