Talk:Widest path problem/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: I am accepting this article for review :-D. Please give me at least two weeks; I have been busy lately, and I tend to be pretty thorough ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  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) The prose is clear and spelling looks fine. My spell check caught that words with "re" at the beginning don't have a dash between the "re" and the word (i.e. "re-scheduled"), but its consistent and the words are typical ones that spell-checkers will miss-flag as incorrect. Passing. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The article appears to meet and use the MOS consistently throughout. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The article appears to use references and reference listing according to the manual of style. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The references used in the article appear to be secondary and reliable. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The article's content appears to be verifiable and doesn't appear to contain original research. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The article does not come back with any concerns when reviewing sources or running it against tools. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) All major aspects, including points, vertices, trees, association, connections, distance, and weight. It appears to adequately cover areas that readers would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The article stays well focused on the major aspects of the article subject and does not go off-topic. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The article does not violate NPOV or add personal analysis, commentary, or bias. 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
    Other than edits made by those involved with recent improvements, the article does not undergo major changes or 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) Images are user self-work, and do not have copyright issues. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Images are appropriately used and well captioned. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass The article was a great read. Sorry it took me so long to review. I got busy, and there was quite a lot of content to review. Thanks for letting me review it. Well done! :-)

Discussion[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

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:Widest_path_problem/GA1&oldid=1038141808"