Talk:Zoom! (poetry book)
 | Zoom! (poetry book) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 14, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Zoom! (poetry book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Boca Jóvenes (talk · contribs) 14:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll review this. Hope to have something for you soon. BoJó | talk UTC 14:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks, I'll aim to get to any comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I do apologise, Chiswick Chap. I read the article two weekends ago and intended to pass it but I was called away for something urgent and I completely forgot to complete this page. The article is very interesting and well written, completely within scope, good referencing and with no problems I can see. It is an immediate GA pass (that is, it should have been immediate!). Very well done. All the best. BcJvs | talk UTC 06:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I should have included the criteria template earlier so more apologies. The article easily meets all the criteria in my opinion. As I said above, it is well written, it fully complies with the MOS and it presents a good breadth of coverage within scope. Verification is satisfactory and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the content. Well done. BcJvs | talk UTC 13:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)