Talk:Natural Bridges National Monument Solar Power System
Natural Bridges National Monument Solar Power System was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 16, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Natural Bridges National Monument Solar Power System in Utah was the world's largest solar cell power plant when it opened in 1980? |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editThe following discussion 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Natural Bridges National Monument Solar Power System/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Doug Coldwell, I'm going to open GA reviews for all of your remaining nominations and post this identical message on all of them. First of all, they'll need an active nominator, so if you're still around to review them, please let me know by a week from now (10/5). If you haven't, at that point, they'll be closed without passing. If you are still around, *please* check that they will pass source review and withdraw the nominations that will not. Otherwise, that is likely to be the first thing I check and I would prefer not to have to go through all of them just to quick-fail them if I find problems you already know about. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Closed as unsuccessful due to nominator non-response. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. 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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |