Talk:Educationally subnormal/GA1

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Llewee in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: SyntheticSystems (talk · contribs) 20:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

edit
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

edit
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Prose is good but lead could be bigger.   On hold
    (b) (MoS) No MoS violations.   Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) References match up what is in the article but some references need page numbers.   On hold
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) All statements are sourced.   Pass
    (c) (original research) No original research.   Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No plagiarism.   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) All major aspects are covered.   Pass
    (b) (focused) In-depth coverage but could be better.   Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Neutral.   Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    No edit wars.   Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Images are good.   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Images need alt text.   Pass

Result

edit
Result Notes
  Pass Good.
Hi SyntheticSystems, thank you for reviewing the article. I've added images. Do you think any other changes are needed to the article?--Llewee (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think you could expand the lead a little bit. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi SyntheticSystems, what do you think of the article now?--Llewee (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Looks good. I think you might need page numbers for the first reference. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
SyntheticSystems, It's quite a short paper and the relevant parts span pretty much the whole thing.--Llewee (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.