Talk:Sleight of hand/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 17:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll try my best to get this reviewed quickly. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status – Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion

• This already looks like a quick pass one. But I feel only about the length. A good expansion is needed in all sections, specially in the entomology section and then done. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 10:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Lead could be improved about the way how those magicians does the trick, I mean, how they perform the trick in stage. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 10:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Herald, I will do my best to expand the sections of the article and ping you when I'm done. Thank you very much for also taking on this review. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay The Herald, I've expanded each section with about 300 bytes each. I've also some more links and added an external links section. Hope you're satisfied now. Please let me know if there is anything else. :) Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Result

..its a pass. The article rightly meets the GA requirements and good to go. Nice work by the nominator. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks man. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)