Misplaced Pages

Talk:Nothing to My Name/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:Nothing to My Name Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:54, 19 March 2009 editDeLarge (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users12,931 edits GA list; quickly tick off the ones that can be deal with most easily← Previous edit Revision as of 20:12, 20 March 2009 edit undoDeLarge (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users12,931 edits →GA Review: three more wee things to check offNext edit →
Line 22: Line 22:
#:: #::
#It is '''broad in its coverage'''. #It is '''broad in its coverage'''.
#:a ''(major aspects)'': {{GAList/check|}} b ''(focused)'': {{GAList/check|}} #:a ''(major aspects)'': {{GAList/check|aye}} b ''(focused)'': {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: #::
#It follows the '''] policy'''. #It follows the '''] policy'''.
#:''Fair representation without bias'': {{GAList/check|}} #:''Fair representation without bias'': {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: #::
#It is '''stable'''. #It is '''stable'''.

Revision as of 20:12, 20 March 2009

GA Review

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

Quick-fail assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Green tickY
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Green tickY
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. Green tickY
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. Green tickY
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. Green tickY

Everything OK, so full review to follow. --DeLarge (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Template-generated summary

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: