Talk:Bristol Cathedral/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: José Galindo (talk · contribs) 23:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'm on this --José Galindo (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Well-written article Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Complete Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Complete Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Complete Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Complete Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Complete Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Excellent Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    This article is fully stable as it is not undergoing any major changes, edit wars, or content disputes Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images are used legally. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All images are used appropriately with suitable captions. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass Nice article, simple, precise.

Discussion[edit]

Thanks for putting a pass next to each criteria; however not all are green in the review progress box at the top and I am unsure whether there are any changes you feel are needed to meet the criteria.— Rod talk 06:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comment. I did a second review. I think that the article is good enough to be considered as good, but maybe it should be longer. Good images, good captions. I didnt see any typo. Tell me if you have another opinion, it would be very useful. --José Galindo (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know of any particular issues, otherwise I would not have nominated it, so I think if you are happy it is for you to complete the process.— Rod talk 06:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bristol_Cathedral/GA1&oldid=1038144901"