Talk:Carl Størmer/GA1
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Hawkeye7 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
No much work required
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Some minor points; see below
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Some citations required; see below
- B. 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:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Nearly there, only some small changes required
- Pass or Fail:
- Comments
- Citations required in the third paragraph of Mathematical research and the third paragraph of Astrophysical research
- Title case for the book title in the lead and the third paragraph of Astrophysical research
- Link π in the lead
- That should do it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Thanks! All done, I think. At least, done if I'm interpreting what you meant by the third paragraph of the mathematics section correctly (it is actually still part of the first paragraph). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- All good then. Passing the article. You could consider adding some of his awards to the infobox. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Thanks! All done, I think. At least, done if I'm interpreting what you meant by the third paragraph of the mathematics section correctly (it is actually still part of the first paragraph). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- That should do it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)