Talk:SweeTango/GA1

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 Review

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

Reviewer: Guitarist28 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is clear and straight to the point. I got all of the information that I would want from this article. It appears that it is very well constructed and written. I also ran it through a spell check, and there was no spelling errors, and the grammar appears great as well. I found no errors myself, and neither did spellcheck.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Again, it is written very well, and is well constructed. It follows the manual of style, and it is laid out in a user friendly way.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references are good, there is no errors, and they are laid out in accordance to the rules.
	2b. 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).	All citations are from reliable sources. There is an area which appears to be plagiarism on the copyright violation detector is cited in the text and quoted. There is no BLP or controversial information on this page. In conclusion, it appears that this article is well cited, and does not have any issues with the citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	It has no original research, and confirms to the Wikipedia policy.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The article when ran through the Copyright violation detector does show with a 58.3% confidence that there is a violation or plagiarism. I have determined that to be false, as that area that may have the violations is properly cited, quoted, and sourced.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Everything is on topic and there is no issues with off topic coverage.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Perfect in this category! It has more than enough information to suit me, and it has all information for a college student doing a research paper. There is no unnecessary details.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias here!
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Checked the history. There has been only 164 revisions since 2010. No edit warring, and no recent vandalism.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are tagged properly with their copyright status. There is no violations of copyright or image policy.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Perfect captions, all images are related to the topic, and there is enough images on this page to look at and choose from to get a good idea about the apples. The logo image is also properly sourced.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is by far a pass! Everything looks great. The article is organised, there is no violations, and it is user friendly! I can easily see this article getting FA status. I would encourage that a significant contributor nominates this for FA status, and fix anything that may even possibly need it, which I doubt anything needs fixing. Great job!

Yeah, so I downgraded it again. Above reviewer ignored 2b & 2d. There is also some punctuation that could be looked over. Needs better citations and attention from an expert, and rewritten so as not to be an advertisement. Really sorry, guy. Leo Breman (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: Guitarist28 was a returning sockpuppet who was blocked after five days, so the review has been reverted and the nomination restored so that someone who is qualified can give it a proper review. Closing this page. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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.