Jump to content

Talk:Twin Spica/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: Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria

[edit]
  • Sources  Pass
  • Neutral  Pass
  • No outstanding cleanup tags  Pass
  • Stable  Pass
  • Not related to a current event  Pass

Checklist: A good article is...

Well-written

[edit]
  1. The prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct  Pass
    No major grammar problems found --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)
  2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.  Pass
    Looks like it is in compliance with WP:MOS-AM --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Factually accurate and verifiable

[edit]
  1. It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout  Pass
    Practically everything is attributed to a reliable source. No problems here --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)
  2. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines  Pass
    Yes --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)
  3. it contains no original research.  Pass
    None as far as I can tell --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Broad in its coverage

[edit]
  1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic  Pass
    It addresses each area of coverage required by the MOS and covers each in detail. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)
  2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail  Pass
    Maintains a real-world frame and stays on topic throughout the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Neutral

[edit]
  • Tt represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.  Pass
Not as much of an issue with fiction articles, but no it is not written from a fan POV. The tone is appropriate too. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Stable

[edit]
  • it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.  Pass
    While major work on this article occured this month, there has been no real content disputes or edit wars. This article is undeniably much better. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

[edit]
  1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content  Pass
    All images have appropriate rationales and don't appear to be in question. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)
  2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.  Pass
    All are captioned, and directly relate to commentary. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Conclusion

[edit]

I feel this article as of this revision meets all the good article criteria and should be rated as such. Congratulations on your work! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]