Jump to content

Talk:Parsnip/GA2: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Response
GA review - pass
Line 15: Line 15:
#::
#::
#Is it '''factually accurate''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]'''?
#Is it '''factually accurate''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]'''?
#:A. Has an [[Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_footers|appropriate reference section]]: {{GAList/check|?}}
#:A. Has an [[Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_footers|appropriate reference section]]: {{GAList/check|y}}
#:: Some of the [http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Parsnip external links] could use access dates. Also, the last one is broken.
#:: Some of the [http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Parsnip external links] could use access dates. Also, the last one is broken.
#:::Done. They all work for me. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 09:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
#:::Done. They all work for me. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 09:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
#:B. Cites [[WP:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]], [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria/where necessary|where necessary]]: {{GAList/check|n}}
#:B. Cites [[WP:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]], [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria/where necessary|where necessary]]: {{GAList/check|y}}
#:: One "citation required"
#:: One "citation required"
#:::New source found. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 09:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
#:::New source found. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 09:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Line 40: Line 40:
#::
#::
#'''Overall''':
#'''Overall''':
#:Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|?}}
#:Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
#::
#::

Revision as of 20:28, 25 October 2015

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A tasty article, full of flavour

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Some of the external links could use access dates. Also, the last one is broken.
    Done. They all work for me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    One "citation required"
    New source found. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All images are appropriately licensed.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: