Talk:Nat Hentoff/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Adityavagarwal in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 12:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Well written. Would be picking up the review, and amending straight forward changed. Feel free to revert/change any mistakes that I make while I edit the article. 
- 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?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- 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 fair 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
We need a source date for all the web citations (if possible, as all of them may not mention one).Also, replace references 17, 23, and 24. They do not seem reliable.References 29, 30, 31, and 36 are not working, so replace that too.There are a lot of places with two continuous spaces."which published his work until his death" his only one work or works?"and his writing was also published in..." was it only one writing or writings?Link Boston, Massachusetts.- @MBlaze Lightning: Lastly, there is a slight copyvio issue. Would be great if that could be dealt with.
- Done
- It still shows with this and this. Just slight paraphrasing is required. @MBlaze Lightning: Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Done :)
- It is still present with the first one (nytimes). A slight paraphrasing will do. here Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Adityavagarwal: What that tool shows as a match are names of awards, publications, and common phrases ("the son of", "was named one of", etc). Nothing to be concerned about.—MBlaze Lightning T 05:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yep. Although, if you check now, it is done.
The rest seems fine to me. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- All done. —MBlaze Lightning T 04:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Great work! The prose is especially good, as there were almost no errors. It is a definite pass! 
Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
