Jump to content

Talk:Costa Concordia disaster/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

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 10:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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):
    The prose of the costa concordia disaster is easily understandable to an average reader
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead section is concise, the layout matches the MoS.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    References are verifiable and easily identifiable (also, 306 references?!?)
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    Inline citations are from verifiable sources
    c. (OR):
    Inline citations back up the article's text
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    The article
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    The article covers all relevant topics to the subject without straying into unnecessary detail
    b. (focused):
    The article does not stray into unnecessary detail about any particular subject
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article does not give undue weight to certain opinions or viewpoints
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit warring as far as I can see
  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):
    Article is illustrated to readers by images, such as maps, timelines and on-scene images
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Media have relevant and informative captions
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    I believe this article meets the good article criterion

(Criteria marked are unassessed)