Talk:House of Rufus/GA1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Another Believer in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Petergriffin9901 (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 03:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- 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:
- 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:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- I'm honestly very impressed with this article. Small, but very clear and concise. Really well done. There are some issues with the references. You choose to list works and publishers half of the time. Why not list the publishers for Allmusic? Be consistent. Also, some such as # 25 are missing accessdates. Look over the refs and its a pass :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. I added All Media Guide as the publisher for all Allmusic references. Also, I went ahead and added an accessdate for the Times reference, but since I cannot include a URL I do not believe the accessdate will display properly. This search on the Times website shows that the article exists (see Will Hodgkinson) but unfortunately I am unable to view the article itself and include the URL. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Much thanks for taking the time to review the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
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.