Talk:Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) 03:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   Again, have my doubts about the licencing on one or two of these, but I can't find copyright versions in a google search, so I guess they are okay.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I do think it's for both my and the reviewer's advantage to fail this nomination. The reviewer is too busy in real life to complete this, which is completely understandable. There may be someone else interested in picking this instead. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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.

@Cartoon network freak: wouldn't it have made more sense for the reviewer to withdraw from the review instead of failing it? That way the nomination clock remains from before and it doesn't become a new nomination. Grk1011 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)