Foramen spinosum has been listed as one of the Natural sciences 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: February 7, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
Foramen spinosum received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Foramen spinosum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sahara4u (talk · contribs) 03:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Comments
- Done Lead section may be expanded a little. Usually, a paragraph of more than three line ts recommended, merge the two para.
- Not done History section should come before Structure.
- Thanks, the relevant guideline for this article is WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. For Anatomy articles and medicine-related articles in general, history is recommended as coming after structure.--LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done Images need alt text.
- Done Place "Additional images" before References
—Zia Khan 03:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking up this review, Sahara4u, I feel I have addressed your concerns. Do you have any additional concerns regarding promotion to GA status? LT910001 (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Assessment edit
- GA review (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria and WP:GACN)
- Well-written.
- a (clear and concise prose which doesn't violate copyright laws, grammar and spelling are correct): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and fiction:
- a (clear and concise prose which doesn't violate copyright laws, grammar and spelling are correct): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and fiction:
- Factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (well referenced): b (citations to reliable sources): c (Wikipedia:No original research):
- a (well referenced): b (citations to reliable sources): c (Wikipedia:No original research):
- Broad in its coverage.
- a (covers major aspects): b (well focused):
- a (covers major aspects): b (well focused):
- Neutral .
- Fair representation, no bias:
- Fair representation, no bias:
- Stable.
- No edit wars nor disputed contents:
- No edit wars nor disputed contents:
- Illustrated appropriately by images.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Conclusion: Good work with the article. Keep it up! —Zia Khan 23:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: