Talk:2016 Volta a Catalunya/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Jaguar in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 21:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguations: No links found.
Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.
Checking against the GA criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- The lead summarises the article well, so no issues here. However, I would recommend moving the citations into the body per WP:LEADCITE
- "This was a particular concern" - just lose 'concern' or rephrase it to This was particularly a concern
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- No original research found.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
This is well written, comprehensive and well sourced. It meets the criteria, so passing JAGUAR 17:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)