Talk:Integrated Visual Augmentation System/GA1

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Geardona (talk · contribs) 15:13, 13 February 2024 (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]

Notes

  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. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  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.

Review

edit
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Seems good, did a little cleanup   Pass
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) [Earwigs, for refrence]   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here   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 recent edit wars and such   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) all federal govt public domain   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass

Result

edit
Result Notes
  Pass It is a good article, I think that it explains the concept and execution very well. Congratulations!

Discussion

edit