Jump to content

Talk:Foramen spinosum

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

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Foramen spinosum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sahara4u (talk · contribs) 03:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  •  Done Lead section may be expanded a little. Usually, a paragraph of more than three line ts recommended, merge the two para.
Fleshed out.--LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done History section should come before Structure.
Thanks, the relevant guideline for this article is WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. For Anatomy articles and medicine-related articles in general, history is recommended as coming after structure.--LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Images need alt text.
Thanks for pointing this out, alternate text is a great way to make articles more accessible that I previously wasn't aware of. I'm not sure if my browser is able to view them, so if I haven't done it correctly please let me know.--LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Place "Additional images" before References
Done, and removed one image. --LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zia Khan 03:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and taking up this review, I hope we can work together to get this promoted. --LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up this review, Sahara4u, I feel I have addressed your concerns. Do you have any additional concerns regarding promotion to GA status? LT910001 (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]
GA review (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria and WP:GACN)
  1. Well-written.
    a (clear and concise prose which doesn't violate copyright laws, grammar and spelling are correct): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and fiction:
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (well referenced): b (citations to reliable sources): c (Wikipedia:No original research):
  3. Broad in its coverage.
    a (covers major aspects): b (well focused):
  4. Neutral .
    Fair representation, no bias:
  5. Stable.
    No edit wars nor disputed contents:
  6. Illustrated appropriately by images.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Conclusion: Good work with the article. Keep it up! —Zia Khan 23:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail: