Talk:Wind phone/GA1

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

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 00:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply


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):  
    I've made a few copyedits for clarity and MoS points, hopefully you are okay with them.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    I looked around a bit but didn't find anything to add to what's here.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    I was tempted to say the where visitors can hold one-way conversations with deceased loved ones in the lede should be reworded for clarity, but the by "talking" to him on the phone later makes that clear and I decided it's better the way it is.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  
    I scaled down the Ireland image because it was too big relative to the others.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    This is a really nice article. I almost always place GA nominations on hold, but with the few changes I made, I believe this meets the requirements and I am passing it right now.

@Wasted Time R: Your edits to the article are great. Thank you so much for the review! DanCherek (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply