Talk:Citrus/GA1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Review: fixes ... |
|||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
Ref 63 has range of 20 pages. Can specific page or narrower range of pages be given? |
Ref 63 has range of 20 pages. Can specific page or narrower range of pages be given? |
||
* Done. |
|||
Ref 36 - Dead link |
Ref 36 - Dead link |
||
* URL updated. |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
<!-- It contains no original research. --> |
<!-- It contains no original research. --> |
||
Revision as of 20:29, 27 October 2024
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Stivushka (talk · contribs) 06:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Review started
- Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Review
| 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. | Stivushka (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Stivushka (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
| 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. | Stivushka (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
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). |
Some documents referenced need the specific page or page ranges added. Ref numbers 32, 45, 48, 55, 64 Ref 63 has range of 20 pages. Can specific page or narrower range of pages be given?
Ref 36 - Dead link
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Stivushka (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Stivushka (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Stivushka (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Stivushka (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Stivushka (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Stivushka (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
| 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. | Stivushka (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Excellent use of images. Diagrams made by Article's authors are of notably high quality and add positively to the article.Stivushka (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Some changes made as part of GA review process. These can be reviewed in history section.
Well researched and written article. Some references need fixed. See section 3b. Once references fixed article will meet GA standard. |