Talk:Before and After Science/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

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

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, starting substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • I made a couple of minor copy-edits
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • All other references appear OK
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    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:
    • All OK, congratulations, this is a Good Article. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Before_and_After_Science/GA1&oldid=339654219"