Jump to content

Talk:Robeson County, North Carolina/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 16:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Asheiou (talk · contribs)

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) Prose had a couple of minor grammatical errors, but I've just gone ahead and fixed them. Overall, quite readable. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) No MoS issues that I can see. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Reference section exists and is in the correct format. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Extensive citations to books, local news, and a local encyclopædia. Every claim made is backed up by a citation. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) As I live in the UK, I have the GDPR to contend with in fact-checking sources, especially with sites such as nrcolumbus.com simply blocking my access. With other sources being books, I cannot easily access them either. I spotchecked several sources that I could access and everything I can see is backed up correctly. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Couldn't find any copyvio from my own readthrough and Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article covers everything you'd expect from an article of its nature. It covers the history of the county in great detail. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Everything mentioned is relevant and the article does not get sidetracked. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Article seems neutral to me. 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
    The only thing I can see even remotely resembling an edit war in the recent edit history was just a civil disagreement that followed the WP:3RR. 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) Images are all fair use, public domain, or copyleft. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Images all seem relevant and are captioned correctly. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass All seems good to me! This is a very comprehensive article covering history, demography, economy, culture, and everything else you would expect from an article in an encyclopædia. > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 16:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  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:Robeson_County,_North_Carolina/GA1&oldid=1158851748"