 | Ocute has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 2, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
.svg){kind=small}
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ocute/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 05:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Giving this article a review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Well-written. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Lead section is good, no puffery, complies with WP:MOS - good to go. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Ran the copyvio tool, everything looks good. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Lays out the facts of this chiefdom's/tribe's rise and fall dispassionately. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Stable, no edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- All the permissions are fine. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I am doing a few more proofing-readhthroughs of the article to see if I missed anything, but so far so good. I can see some minor points of possible improvement but they are a matter of personal preference rather than being part of WP:GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's a GA!
- Going forward I do think that some images of the pottery types (Vining Stamped ware->Complicated stamped pottery->complex coiled pottery) and images of some of the major Ocute mound sites would increase the human interest and break up the body of the text somewhat. I understand that these images might not be available on Commons but it is an area of possible future improvement. Shearonink (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
