Talk:Stadion, Malmö/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 23:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Will review this tomorrow (11 March), just reserving it now. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
- This looks pretty good. You've followed MOS very well, but, without meaning to cause you offence, your written English is sometimes a little bit choppy. If you would like me to copy-edit this for you, I am happy to do so when I have time. Generally the information is good, it just needs a bit of polishing. Be advised that I spotted a hyphen rather than an en-dash in a Sweden match result in the "Other uses" section.
- Have given this a good going-over myself. Looks good to me now.
—Cliftonian (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Have given this a good going-over myself. Looks good to me now.
- This looks pretty good. You've followed MOS very well, but, without meaning to cause you offence, your written English is sometimes a little bit choppy. If you would like me to copy-edit this for you, I am happy to do so when I have time. Generally the information is good, it just needs a bit of polishing. Be advised that I spotted a hyphen rather than an en-dash in a Sweden match result in the "Other uses" section.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- No dead links. Everything, so far as I can see, correctly referenced to reliable sourced. Looks good to me.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- I see nothing omitted which most readers would need from an article of this sort.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- No point of view evident.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Considerable recent work, but all by one editor with a good reputation, with whom I am also well acquainted in this context. The work is all constructive and I doubt it could be construed as causing instability.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Alt text is missing, but this is not necessary for GAN. You are probably already aware that you will need to add it if you potentially take this to FAC, however.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Just needs some work on the prose, as explained above. I am happy to help with this if asked. I see no other problems before this ultimately passes. —Cliftonian (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good now. Passing. Well done! —Cliftonian (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just needs some work on the prose, as explained above. I am happy to help with this if asked. I see no other problems before this ultimately passes. —Cliftonian (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
