Talk:Fences and Windows/GA1

GA Review

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

As this is my first GA review, feel free to comment/ask me questions! Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 15:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Philosophy

As with most GA Reviewers, I tend to break each individual section down to compose the overall article's quality. This way, you will be able to edit specifically the parts where I feel there are problems. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 15:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   See comments on GA review summary for rationale for GA fail.

Article Review

References

• Overall, references are pretty good.
  • Try to eliminate the red links.
  • As per WP:CITE, be a bit more specific.
    • General references should be merged somehow.
  • Like the clarity and abundancy.
    • Most of the references seem to be clear and accurate.