Talk:The Diving Pool/GA1

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Whiteguru in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply


Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

 



Observations

edit

Final

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  

  Presenting a book sans slabs of text and excerpts is challenging. Well done, here.

  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  Yes, links, citations to references are accurate and appropriate.

  1. a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  

  Follows MOS; all references are reliable sources; (for a Japanese novella, well done)

  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  

  Yes, suitably broad in coverage.

  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  

  NPOV is presented.

  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  

  7 editors for 43 edits, 7278 page views for 60 days. A stable article is encountered.

  1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

  Image is a book cover; qualifies as fair use for non-free images. Accepted.

  1. Overall:

A neat, informative presentation of Japanese novella, topic of Psychological horror, magical realism, surrealism. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Passed