Misplaced Pages

Talk:2024 Men's T20 World Cup/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:2024 Men's T20 World Cup Browse history interactivelyNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:44, 1 September 2024 editVkwiki100 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,177 edits ←Created page with '==GA Review== {{Good article tools}} {{subst:GAN/subst|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} '''Reviewer:''' ] (] '''·''' ]) ~~~~~ <!-- Please add all review comments below this comment, and do not alter what is above. So that the review can be kept within a single section, please do not use level 2 headers (==...==) be...'  Revision as of 05:01, 1 September 2024 edit undoChristieBot (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors100,465 editsm Adding nominator informationNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
{{Good article tools}} {{Good article tools}}
<noinclude>{{al|{{#titleparts:2024 ICC Men&#39;s T20 World Cup/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}<br/></noinclude><includeonly>:''This review is ] from ]. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''</includeonly> <noinclude>{{al|{{#titleparts:2024 ICC Men&#39;s T20 World Cup/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}<br/></noinclude><includeonly>:''This review is ] from ]. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''</includeonly>

'''Nominator:''' {{User|Vestrian24Bio}} 01:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)


'''Reviewer:''' ]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 04:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC) '''Reviewer:''' ]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 04:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:01, 1 September 2024

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) 01:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vkwiki100 (talk · contribs) 04:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: I'll be reviewing this one. VK wiki100 04:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: