Talk:All Nippon Airways/GA1: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
===Main Review=== |
===Main Review=== |
||
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left" |
|||
|- valign="top" |
|||
! width="30" | Rate <!-- Replace the question marks below with "y", "n", or nothing to change the assessment icon --> |
|||
! width="300"| [[WP:GACR|Attribute]] |
|||
! | Review Comment |
|||
|- valign="top" |
|||
| colspan="3" | '''1.''' {{GAC|1}}: <!-- Well written. Add comments to the ends of the lines below. --> |
|||
<!-- The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. --> |
|||
{{GATable/item|1a|?|More will be covered in the prose review. From a glance it looks okay. |
|||
}} |
|||
<!-- it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. --> |
|||
{{GATable/item|1b|y|Lead is a good length, good layout, no weasel words, etc. |
|||
}} |
|||
|- valign="top" |
|||
| colspan="3" | '''2.''' {{GAC|2}}: <!-- Verifiable. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). --> |
|||
<!-- 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.--> |
|||
{{GATable/item|2a|?|All/most information is properly cited, however, according to [[Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_and_why_to_cite_sources|this page]] ..."citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article..." |
|||
}} |
|||
<!-- 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. --> |
|||
{{GATable/item|2b|y|Citations are good, no citations would be considered challengable. |
|||
}} |
|||
<!-- It contains no original research. --> |
|||
{{GATable/item|2c|?|Will check this in the source review |
|||
}} |
|||
|- valign="top" |
|||
| colspan="3" | '''3.''' {{GAC|3}}: <!-- Broad. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). --> |
|||
<!-- Coverage. It addresses the [[Wikipedia:Out of scope|main aspects of the topic]]. --> |
|||
{{GATable/item|3a|y|Doesn't go into too much detail on anything specifically, it is covering the main aspects of ANA. |
|||
}} |
|||
<!-- Focus. It stays [[Wikipedia:Article size|focused on the topic]] without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). --> |
|||
{{GATable/item|3b|y|Good article size, good lead like I mentioned earlier. |
|||
}} |
|||
<!-- Neutral. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). --> |
|||
{{GATable/item|4|y|Not biased because it is an airline article anyways. |
|||
}} |
|||
<!-- Stable. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). --> |
|||
{{GATable/item|5|y|No edit wars, conflict wars, etc. Good job! |
|||
}} |
|||
|- valign="top" |
|||
| colspan="3" | '''6.''' {{GAC|6}}: <!-- Images. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). --> |
|||
<!-- Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. --> |
|||
{{GATable/item|6a|?|[[File:Pokemon_Jets.jpg|This picture]] may have an issue as the Pokemon themselves are copyright? You may have to remove this picture from the article. All other pictures are great! |
|||
}} |
|||
<!-- Images are [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature|relevant]] to the topic, and have [[Wikipedia:CAP|suitable captions]]. --> |
|||
{{GATable/item|6b|y|The pictures are relevant to ANA and they are described correctly. |
|||
}} |
|||
<!-- Overall. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). --> |
|||
{{GATable/item|7|?|See comments above in the "copyright status" and "references" rows. Also, see below for prose and source reviews. |
|||
}} |
|||
|} |
|||
===Prose Review=== |
===Prose Review=== |
Revision as of 01:40, 17 April 2015
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 01:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this excellent article! I do my GA reviews with one main review then with prose and source reviews to make sure the article is suitable for GA status! Example: This GA --Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 01:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Main 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. | More will be covered in the prose review. From a glance it looks okay. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead is a good length, good layout, no weasel words, etc. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | All/most information is properly cited, however, according to this page ..."citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article..." | |
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). | Citations are good, no citations would be considered challengable. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Will check this in the source review | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Doesn't go into too much detail on anything specifically, it is covering the main aspects of ANA. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Good article size, good lead like I mentioned earlier. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Not biased because it is an airline article anyways. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit wars, conflict wars, etc. Good job! | |
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. | may have an issue as the Pokemon themselves are copyright? You may have to remove this picture from the article. All other pictures are great! | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The pictures are relevant to ANA and they are described correctly. | |
7. Overall assessment. | See comments above in the "copyright status" and "references" rows. Also, see below for prose and source reviews. |
Prose Review
When you finish a point, just use a check sign which looks like this: Otherwise, use if it only partially is needed, or if you don't think its necessary.