Jump to content

Talk:The Hole (Scientology)/GA2

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) 20:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
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.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
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). This is a blog, how is it RS? And it is being used for information on a BLP was well. Would these two[1][2] be better?.
You're right, it's not - someone else has added that. I've reused a reliable source from later in the paragraph to source that info. Prioryman (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Gotta say, you have done a great job on this, I am going to read through it one more time but am seeing no issues at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. 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. 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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Easiest GA review ever, well written, sourced and given the subject matter neutral, excellent job. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]