Talk:January Storm

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:January Storm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FenrisAureus (talk · contribs) 09:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

GA review

Last updated: 08:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC) by Qwerfjkl (bot)

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

January Storm § Background Does not clearly state the aims of the Scarlet Guard, in meeting with the central leadership in Beijing. On hold until remediated.— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Issue remediated.  Passed— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

2b) 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)

2c) it contains no original research

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

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

5) Stable:

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

LGTM — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Most media by far of the GA reviews I've done. Good job. Pass — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Overall: See criterion 1a. Article otherwise satisfies all criteria. On hold for 7 days until issue remediated.— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I rephrased the sentence. Hopefully it resolves 1A. Appreciate the comments. Best regards, gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Issue remediated.  Passed— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Format?

@PenangLion: Hi. So I don't think it's very unreadable to have an extra column, for example the Libyan civil war (2014-2020) has four columns, so I'd like to hear your full reasoning. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 05:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

For my resolution the Libyan civil war (2014–2020) was very unreadable. Plus, the dissenting rebels constitute a faction too small to be an actual belligerent in the conflict, as the article discusses the conflict between the municipal council and the workers' commune, not an actual three way conflict. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@PenangLion: I see. Thank you for the explanation. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 07:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)