Talk:Para-swimming classification/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jamesyboy2468 (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll take this one jamesy boy (2468) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	A few more references on the history section would be nice.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comment: There is no move discussion that is ongoing. There is a comment on a talk page, not on the article page. There has been no follow up for a comment about a month old. There is no indication the name will change. This stability issue is a non-issue. What else needs to be addressed? --LauraHale (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A strange reviewing approach it has to be said..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I suppose that the move discussion does not have a significance. Late night Wikipedia editing... jamesy boy (2468) 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are 19 references in the History section, which is fully referenced. What additional references do you want? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer's now disappeared, so I'm not sure what to do here, whether to pass or put it back in the queue, leaning towards the latter. Wizardman 23:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]