Talk:Nearest-neighbor chain algorithm/GA2

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DrStrauss (talk · contribs) 15:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Passed! DrStrauss talk 15:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing approval by novice reviewer

This was one of seven reviews posted within a 40 minute period. None of them were complete reviews; as the reviewer noted on his or her talk page, I didn't realise that GA was such a refined endeavour, rather just a sort of stamp.

The article still needs to be given a thorough review by a knowledgeable reviewer, so it has been put back into the reviewing pool. Any subsequent review will be done on a different review page. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]