Talk:The Smiths/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Spintendo (talk · contribs) 04:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The article will be reviewed according to the criteria specified below. As the nominating editor at this time is unable to meaningfully participate in this review due to a ban, the issues affecting the article will be mentioned in the GA table below and the review will be concluded. For local editors monitoring, a list of the most pressing items is shown below in the GA Table. Regards,  Spintendo  04:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review 22-APR-2019

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.	Because the nominating editor was unavailable for assistance, the needed copyediting and cleanup of the prose could not be carried out.
	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).	The article contains numerous dead links. The amount of links which are not working make checking of the references difficult.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Unable to ascertain due to sources being inaccessible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The article contains a large amount of text which is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. The problematic text may be viewed here.
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.	Because links could not be accessed, the entire breadth of WP:WEIGHT (the potential for WP:NPOV in the sources used) could not be assessed.
	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.	The article does not meet GA status. Areas for improvement are noted above.