Talk:GNU General Public License/GA1
Latest comment: 6 years ago by TheDragonFire in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ProgrammingGeek (talk · contribs) 15:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Criteria edit
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- 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.[1]
- 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);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (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).
- 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. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [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
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- 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.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | The reviewer has no notes here. |  Undetermined
|
| (b) (MoS) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| (c) (original research) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| (b) (focused) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Undetermined
|
Result edit
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Undetermined |
The reviewer has no notes here. |
Discussion edit
Please add any related discussion here.
@EndThisEntropy: ProgrammingGeek is on an extended wikibreak, and as such is unlikely to complete this review. I've reset the status for this review and the bot will relist it on the nominations page. TheDragonFire (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Additional notes edit
- ^ 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.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ 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.