Talk:Ladislaus III of Hungary/GA1
Latest comment: 9 years ago by 3family6 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 04:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- No copyvios, prose is clear without error.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- "Likely" is colloquial (and I have used it myself in college essays, which is how I found this out), so try different wording such as "probably" or "possibly."
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Well formatted reference lists provided.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
- Adequate citations to reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- C. No original research:
- All content is verifiable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- The article is very short. I've passed short articles before (Yo'nal Ahk III), but this one is even shorter than those, and I'm not sure if this is acceptable or not under the good article criteria. I'm requesting a second opinion on this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I brought this up on the GA criteria talk page, and this article is fine.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- The article is very short. I've passed short articles before (Yo'nal Ahk III), but this one is even shorter than those, and I'm not sure if this is acceptable or not under the good article criteria. I'm requesting a second opinion on this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- B. Focused:
- Focused on the subject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Neutral, balanced presentation.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Highly stable, no instances of major disruption in this article's history.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Image is in public domain.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- The image is useful, quite artistic, and has a suitable caption.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall: I'm not sure about the size of this article, so I'm requesting a second opinion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's fine, so I'm going to go ahead an pass this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
