Talk:Daymond Langkow/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Canada Hky in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Looks pretty good, just a few things, as I have noted below.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Done In the professional section, does 'Restricted free agent' need to be capitalized, could be piped to lower case, I think. Also, in the same section 'He fell back...' sounds awkward.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Done Missing Persondata (WP:PERSON)
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Done References all look good, except some are missing accessdates - 17 and 21 are two that I noticed.
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- 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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Images should have alt text (WP:ALT)
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- It is needed for FA but not really for GA. Mephiston999 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Very close, just a few minor things, I'll place it on hold to let you address them.
- Pass or Fail:
Well, I come to deal with the issues, and find that Mephiston999 has already done this. My thanks! Resolute 16:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Everything's been addressed, so I will pass this one Canada Hky (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)