Talk:Unit fraction/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Brachy0008 (talk · contribs) 11:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. Is it well written?

    1a. The prose is clear and concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

The prose is clear and concise, and also introduces the readers to the terms and equations related to unit fractions.

    1b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

The layout is ok, no words to watch and list incorporations.

    2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    2a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
    References do not need to be consistently formatted or bibliographically complete, but they should contain enough information for you to be able to identify the source. Dead links should not be bare URLs.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

Reflist is neat

    2b. 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:
    Verify that the 5 types of statements listed above are supported by inline citations. Check if there are any unreliable sources (see WP:RSP), including self-published sources and user-generated content.

b. (citations to reliable sources):

Spotchecks find no unreliable or deprecated sources

    2c. It contains no original research:
    Check at least some of the cited sources to see if they verify the article text. The article should not synthesize material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not stated by any of them.

c. (OR):

Spotchecked it already. No original research

    2d. It contains no copyright violations or plagiarism:
    While verifying citations, check if any text has been copied or closely paraphrased into the article. Earwig's tool can help check for plagiarism of online sources (https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios), but it should not replace manual checks as it cannot fully detect close paraphrasing.

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

So far so good

    3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    3a. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Ensure coverage of the main aspects. Note that to meet criteria 3a and 3b, comprehensiveness is not required: "broad in its coverage" allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

Generally covers things the reader can know about unit fractions.

    3b. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Check for undue emphasis on tangents or minor details. Lengthy sections on subtopics should be spun off into their own articles, leaving summaries in their place.

b. (focused):

Does not go out of the point related to Unit Fractions.

    4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Each viewpoint should be weighted in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources on the topic. Check if minority views are given undue weight in terms of the depth of detail, prominence of placement or word choice. Ensure that the article describes disputes without engaging in them.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:

No bias found

    5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Scan the article's history and talk page for edit wars and content disputes. Good-faith improvements (such as copyediting), changes made in response to the review, proposals to merge or split content, and reversions of vandalism do not apply here. Stability is based on the article's current state, not any potential for instability in the future.

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:

No edit warring so far, no potential for instability

    6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio?
    6a. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Click on media to check for valid copyright tags and, if not freely-licensed, a valid non-free use rationale. If the article has no media, but there is a readily available, relevant image with an acceptable license, it should be included. Otherwise, mark 6a and 6b as passed since media are not required for GA status.

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

All media are either own work or licensed by Creative Commons

    6b. Media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Check that media are not primarily decorative and have relevance to the topic. Captions should be succinct and informative.

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Images are properly tagged

    Overall: Pass, fail or on hold
    If the article meets all 6 criteria, mark it as a pass. If it is only partially compliant or non-compliant, you may place the review on hold to allow time for issues to be fixed (generally 7 days). Often the nomination is brought up to standard during the review. If so, note this and close the review as a pass. If the nomination does not meet the criteria, close it as a fail. -->

Overall:
Pass/fail:

Since no kind soul would volunteer their 2nd opinion, I’ll have to do the rest, and now I’m happy to pass you.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)