User:Chaosdruid/GA1

GA review details - Checklist and current review

For archived reviews see, see User:Chaosdruid/GA1/Archive.

Checklist

List

Y = pass : = needs further checking/work : N = oops! fail

1. Initial pass fail criteria - Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#First_things_to_look_for
2. Checklinks [1] (bear in mind this is not as accurate as it could be, check any dodgy seeming ones.)
3. MoS
   1. Layout
   2. Scripts to run (Dashes & hyphens etc.)
   3. Consistency of style (e.g. dd-mm-yyyy x4; mm-dd-yyyy x1)
   4. CopyVio/Plagiarism - copy a few sections of text and run through Google
4. Prose & refs
   1. Lead: too long/short, items not in body, etc.
   2. Body: (of text)
   3. Refs
      1. Reliability (blogs etc)
      2. Dead?
      3. Accurate? - they say what the article says
5. Broad coverage
   1. Major aspects
   2. Coverage
6. Neutral?
7. Stable?
8. Images
   1. Too many/few, placement, relevance
   2. alt= present? free use? fair-use rationale?

Template

• aye, nay, wtf, and ???

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: