 | Buah Rindu 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 10, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Buah Rindu appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| 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:Buah Rindu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 11:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Starting first read-through. More soonest. – Tim riley (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Before formally assessing this article against the GA criteria, may I offer a few gratuitous points on the prose? They are just my personal thoughts, and don't affect the question of GA status (which I shall definitely be awarding, I may say).
- Lead
- "whilst" – I never know what this quaint word has to offer that "while" hasn't, apart from two unnecessary letters. There's another "whilst" later, too.
- Done both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- "highly fixed traditional" – I think "highly fixed" needs a hyphen. And also at its occurrence in the "Style" section.
- I believe that MOS:HYPHEN suggests no hyphen (adverb, not adjective). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Second para – two "highly"s in close proximity.
- Removed one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Style
- "in the center" – up to this point I thought we were using UK English ("coloured", "favourites") but now US English – or other variant – pops up.
- Apologies. Now fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
That's my lot. If you care to ponder and bat the ball back to me I'll do the GA formalities. – Tim riley (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Good grief! I've hardly had time to catch my breath. All's now done, and here's the paperwork:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Bravo! – Tim riley (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Good grief indeed! Thanks both!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)