GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 10:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my eye on this one for a while. I take a look shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

2. Verifiable with no original research:

  1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
  2. 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);
  3. it contains no original research; and
  4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
2a. Easy win; the article has short and long references in appropriately titled sections. Some non-GA recommendations below:
2b. All references appear to be to good, reliable sources.
2c. Mostly fine, but one minor query below.
2d. All good, no concerns.
I reworded that to be more clear.

Images

[edit]

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

  1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
  2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
6a. A few issues below:
I swapped that out with an image we have clearer copyright status on.
6b. A nice selection of images which are relevant to the article and well captioned.

I'll continue with a full prose review soon. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]

1. Well-written:

  1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
  2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
This was the term used by the source, and I'm hesitant to adjust as a result. I added a link to Wiktionary for the term though which I think should help.

3. Broad in its coverage:

  1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
  2. 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.

Nice work, I'll stick this on hold to give you time to work on the fixes, but there's nothing major. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I should have everything taken care of by the weekend, but if I need more time I'll be sure to note it here. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An update: most concerns addressed, just need to check a few things before I finish. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Everything should be good now. I added a few notes above about specific things, but otherwise everything should be straightforward. If you have any other comments or queries please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The changes all look great, happy to pass this, good work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.