Talk:Stephen Hillenburg/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 13:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
You've been waiting on this one for a while, huh?
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Lead
- no concern
- Early life
- no concern
- Early career
- no concern
- Animation career
- no concern
- Personal life
- no concern
- Filmography
- no concern
- Awards
- no concern
- Lead
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- no concern
- 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:
- no concern
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- no concern
- C. It contains no original research:
- no concern
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig turns up a strong result, but this poorly written document was uploaded in April 2015 and appears to have plagiarized from this article. The other strong result was an interview with common phrases and attributed quotes.
- 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:
- no concern
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- no concern
- 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:
- no concern
- 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:
- There was a dispute over infobox content back in early April that was never discussed on the talk page, but the initiating editor was banned April 7 and there has been no further issue.
- 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- no concern
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- no concern
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- There's an excessive amount of wikilinks to pages that won't really help readers - two standout examples are a link to Drawing in Early Works and Television program creators in Rocko's Modern Life. They won't prevent a GA pass, but I encourage you to review MOS:OVERLINK and edit accordingly. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Thank you, @Argento Surfer:, for reviewing this article and promoting it to GA status 
— Mediran [talk] 02:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)