Talk:Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 15:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. Icebob99 (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This artice did not meet any of the immediate failure criteria. The copyvio detector did have a high chance of copyvio (56%), but I checked the top 10 likelihoods and none of them contained anything more than formal names or quoted text from people such as Kennedy. There are a few cleanup tags, including four citation needed tags, but that is hardly a large number and will not fail this article.
Going through the criteria one by one:
1. Well-written: The prose is good and I couldn't find any grammar errors. Lead section follows MoS, layout correct, no fiction or list incorporation (only possible list is in a "main article" note to the list of signatories. I looked closely at words to watch: there's no peacockery or weasel words, and instances like "key factor" are close to the edge, but all those instances are supported by inline citations, so I'll assume that the sources support the idea of a "key factor".
2. Verifiable: List of references in concordance with layout, all sources reliable (even the "better citation needed" tag is next to a source of adequate reliability), all quotes are referenced inline (I added an extra citation to a quote for which I didn't see any inline citation), no original research found since I'm assuming that the book references that I can't access contain all the information that they cited, no copyvios as described above.
3. Broad: at 80 kB readable prose, this article covers the topic and its progression throughout history thoroughly, and I could not find any unnecessary detail.
4. Neutrality: good. Addresses concerns of both Washington and the Kremlin, as well as other parties.
5. Stability: good, no edit war, only major changes are improvements.
6. Images: Images spread out fairly evenly, all use good licensing, relevant, good captions.
Since this article meets all of the GA criteria, I hereby pass this as a good article. Congratulations to the nominator. Icebob99 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)