Talk:Value theory/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Acer-the-Protogen (talk · contribs) 20:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, it is not eligible for any sort of quick fail. I noticed that the lead section is quite long, which might put it at risk of failing Criterion 1b. It seems properly cited, however. These are just my opening remarks. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 20:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acer-the-Protogen and thanks for reviewing this article! You are right that the lead is relatively long (currently 375 words). However, it reflects the length of the article and is still within the boundaries proposed by MOS:LEADLENGTH: The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. However, the lead does seem like it could be cut shorter, especially since this isn't an FA candidate. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 14:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a way to further shorten the lead. Regarding MOS:LEADLENGTH, I think it is intended as an ideal for articles in general rather than a recommendation limited only to featured articles. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As for the MOS, I personally don't interpret it that way, so I appreciate your interpretations, as well as the lead shortening. I'll go ahead and pass Criterion 1b. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 12:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more looking, and in my opinion, this is a good article! The images are licensed and appropriate, and the wording is also good. Thanks for nominating this! :) (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 14:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far, this is what I've found. It is the first day as of right now, so feel free to chime in (especially since this is my first GA review.)

I got a spot-check on sources 114, 1, 4, and 212. They all seem alright and paraphrased, and Earwig's only concerns were duplicate titles of the website.

I took a few more looks. This is what I've got from Day 2. I'll look closer at the images and criterions 3a and 3b later.

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, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·