Talk:Nenets Herding Laika

GA Review

The 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nenets Herding Laika/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Annwfwn, please address the copyright issue below promptly and scan the article manually for any other issues. Thanks! Copyright issues can result in a quickfail - I don't think this is egregious, but good to get it taken care of asap. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Annwfwn will you be around to respond to comments on this review? Otherwise, I will have to close it out by the 15th of June. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm willing to extend this to the 21st of June to allow a full two weeks to pass before closing the review. @Annwfwn, please let me know your availability to go through the review together. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Closing due to nominator non-response, with no prejudice against renomination. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2023 (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.	The article appears to borrow a sentence from a source per Earwig: "In 1994, the Russian Kynologic..." Needs to be fixed urgently. Hold for manual check for other issues.
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.	No issues found, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.