Talk:Sylvester da Cunha/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 16:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I will be reviewing this article according to the GA criteria (planning to be done within a week). This review is a part of the August 2023 GAN drive.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Decapitalize taluka
- Three sentence in a row begin with "The campaign"; could you introduce more variety?
- Otherwise looks good.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- 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:
- Refs are listed properly. Some issues inline, however:
- Book and magazine citations (eg. 8-10) need dates, page numbers and authors/publishers in the rights params if available.
- Web references: Some (eg. 18 and 19) should use the website name instead of a url, also ref 3 needs to be formatted to have the source name in the website parameter instead of in the author and title parameters (remove unneeded, bot generated pipe portion)
- Refs are listed properly. Some issues inline, however:
- 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):
- Sources used look good. Will look again later.
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Ran through Earwig, no plagarism from Web sources (just see Wikipedia mirrors). Don't see any issues from psychical sources either.
- 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:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- 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:
- 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:
- Mostly minor edits in the past few weeks, no constant changes
- 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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- No images, so no potential violations
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- I don't think having images or not would be a deal-breaker. However, I would recommend adding a fair use image of da Cunha and the Amul girl in the Career section if you want to put some in.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- @Ktin: Are you planning to look at this soon? Not to pressure you, just want to know for the drive/if I need to put the review on hold.
- @Ktin: Hi, sorry for the long delay. I should br able to restart this review next week, if you like.
- @Ktin: Alright, I'm just going to close this because its been a long time and we've both not been active enough to maintain this nomination. MSG17 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Ktin: Hi, sorry for the long delay. I should br able to restart this review next week, if you like.
- @Ktin: Are you planning to look at this soon? Not to pressure you, just want to know for the drive/if I need to put the review on hold.
- Pass or Fail:
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.
- @MSG17: not sure how this one fell of my tracking list as I spent most of my time off-wiki in the last few months. I have made the edits -- please can you have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Ktin: No worries, I've been pretty busy too and let this review slip as well. If you want, I will evaluate the page again if you renominate it. MSG17 (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- @MSG17: not sure how this one fell of my tracking list as I spent most of my time off-wiki in the last few months. I have made the edits -- please can you have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)