Talk:Hale's law/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for taking a look at this. Regarding 2b: I have added additional details to citation #2 (HAO) diff. For citation #14 (Cameron), the Oxford Research Encyclopedia is only digital to my knowledge, so there are no page numbers to reference. Furthermore, this particular entry was free prior to January 30th of this year but now requires a subscription. I have removed "doi-access=free" from the citation template diff. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, all sounds good. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and all others who may have worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall, well-written - made a few tweaks, but no major changes. Pass on prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No uncited passages. Well-referenced. Pass.
	2b. 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).	All reliable sources, a couple are quite old but not really an issue. Cite #2 (HAO) has two authors and a date listed at the bottom of the page, they should be added along with any other relevant information and an archive link, if possible. #14 (Cameron), the page numbers for the chapter would be great to add if available. Issues addressed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All appears to be pulled properly from reliable sources, no synthesis or uncited passages. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig, but it can't check most sources - hold for manual spot check. Pass - spot check of 5 sources (thanks, Wikipedia Library!) revealed no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not able to find anything of significance to add. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of overdetail. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Provisional pass, will check again on prose.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well illustrated with high-quality images. Captions are fine, any tweaks can be done on prose review.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.