Talk:White wagtail/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 08:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(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.

Verifiable with no original research:

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

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

This article has only been edited a handful of times in 2012 so far, and most of them are spaced out over months. None of them appear to be reversals of previous edits, and certainly therefore none of them bear characteristics of an edit war. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

This is indeed a very well-illustrated article. I looked through each image and determined that they are all validly licensed, and their links originate on the Wikimedia Commons; I'd say therefore that there is no fair-use trouble involved on this article. All of the images appear to be well-captioned for their usage in the article, as well. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(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.

Comments[edit]

From "Description": "The song is a pleasant twittering..." Can the word "pleasant" be used in this case without sounding POV? If so, then I have no problem with it, but it just doesn't strike me as a neutral term. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like the submitting editor is responsive; perhaps this should be closed? Sasata (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to tag this for a new review, but the fact that a simple question couldn't be answered in over a month means no one's paying attention to the article, so I'm failing this. Wizardman 03:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]