Talk:Loch Ness Monster/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA
A good article is—
  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Minor issues of grammar, punctuation (some fixed). Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) A few slightly doubtful usages e.g. "However". Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Article is properly referenced, with bibliography. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Every section is cited except for some of the Searches. On hold for these to be cited. Fail Fail
    (c) (original research) No untoward claims. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The early and 20th century history are evenly covered. The major photographs are individually and critically discussed. The major searches are critically described and reviewed. The main explanations are each discussed. Popular culture is handled in a subsidiary article (not part of this review). Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Article is well focused on the topic. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Neutrality is very carefully maintained. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Article is reasonably stable. The use of some images has been disputed. Protection has sometimes been applied for vandalism, but content is broadly agreed. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images from Commons except Surgeon's which is tagged and verified fair usage. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The images used are relevant and properly captioned. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Fail Fail Awaiting citations for some of the Searches. Since there has been no progress towards supplying the missing citations during the On Hold period, a Fail is now the only option. Will be happy to reassess when the marked citations needed are filled.

Discussion[edit]

Just wanted to thank you for taking on the Loch Ness Monster review, and if you need any help, don't hesitate to ask.Oakley77 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The review is on hold for a week awaiting citations in the Searches section (tagged in article). If you are actively working on these and need a little more time to locate printed sources, let me know and I'll extend the On Hold period. And if you can recruit experts to help, again, do that and let me know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loch_Ness_Monster/GA1&oldid=1038142129"