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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Davest3r08 (talk · contribs) 16:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
"...The cool thing about these guys is that- is that they have really, really, really long, um, trunks, and, that's- that's cool..." TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
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. | The article reads smoothly. I corrected a minor typo, but that was the only mistake I found. Technical terms have been clarified. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead section is of adequate length. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. Little words in the article that are on the WTW list are present. Fiction and list incorporation policies do not apply. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Article has a reference section with no bare URLs. Citations are formatted correctly. | |
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). | Most sources used are reliable. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Spotchecking proves there is text-source integrity and therefore no original research. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | The top result, according to the Earwig report, is a mirror website. Quotes could use some trimming, though. | |
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). | Article is focused and stays on topic without going into unnecessary detail. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article is neutral. No biases spotted. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article is stable. | |
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. | I'm not sure how the video is listed under a CC-BY license (or where that even is), but the Wikimedia Commons page has an appropriate license, so I'm going to AGF and pass this criterion. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The full video is enough to provide visual context to the reader (obviously). | |
7. Overall assessment. | "...and that's pretty much all there is to say." |
Note: Reference numbers are of this revision. I will check ten references at random.