Talk:Costa Concordia disaster/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 10:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   The prose of the costa concordia disaster is easily understandable to an average reader

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

   The lead section is concise, the layout matches the MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   References are verifiable and easily identifiable (also, 306 references?!?)

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Inline citations are from verifiable sources

   c. (OR):

   Inline citations back up the article's text

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The article

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   The article covers all relevant topics to the subject without straying into unnecessary detail

   b. (focused):

   The article does not stray into unnecessary detail about any particular subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article does not give undue weight to certain opinions or viewpoints

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit warring as far as I can see

6. 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):

   Article is illustrated to readers by images, such as maps, timelines and on-scene images

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Media have relevant and informative captions

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   I believe this article meets the good article criterion

(Criteria marked are unassessed)