Talk:Hitting for the cycle/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by MathewTownsend in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 15:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I will be starting this review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
- B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- "Multiple cycles" and "Natural cycles" is used twice as a heading
- From Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "Section and subsection headings should preferably be unique within a page; otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and automatic edit summaries can be ambiguous."
- "Multiple cycles" and "Natural cycles" is used twice as a heading
- A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Provides references to all sources:
- B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Provides references to all sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Main aspects are addressed:
- B. Remains focused:
- A. Main aspects are addressed:
- Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Just a few nit picks. Otherwise, a fine article. Will put on hold for seven days. I've made a few edits that you are free to revert if they are unsatisfactory.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the dead link, as it duplicated content from ref 24. The section headings have been made more specific. — KV5 • Talk • 20:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- All problems fixed. Article passed the GA review. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)