Talk:2011 Tour de France/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by BlackJack in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 17:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply


Review

edit

I'll review this. Jack | talk page 17:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Findings

edit

This a GA review of 2011 Tour de France.

No worries on the WP:WIAGA#Immediate_failures front with all four criteria passed:

  1. it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria:  
  2. it contains copyright infringements:  
  3. it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid — e.g., {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}:  
  4. the article is not stable due to edit warring on the page:  

As a result, a full review has been undertaken and the findings are as follows:

  • Article size is well over 100k but there is no WP:LENGTH issue as much of the content is in tabular form and the readable prose size is 24k, which is fine.
  • Excellent images in use, especially the route map.
  • Useful tabulations to finish the article.

Could you please attend to the above points where necessary and I think this will pass. Placing on hold for seven days. Well done. Jack | talk page 16:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the excellent review. I have fixed what I can for the moment. Will be back tomorrow. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's fine now, Boris. I'm passing it per the checklist below. Very good work. All the best. Jack | talk page 18:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Checklist

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for the six good article criteria:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and embedded lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations):  
    C. No original research:  
    D. No copyright violations:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Scope:  
    B. Length:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: