GA Review

[edit]

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

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.


Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 04:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Nicholas Michael Halim (talk · contribs) at 08:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


GA criteria

[edit]
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):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments

[edit]

Prose

[edit]

@Nicholas Michael Halim – I'll stop here and continue with it later. We could really get some dedicated copy-editing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

References

[edit]

That is it. Putting on hold. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2022 (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.