Talk:Netball/GA3

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Don4of4 in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: ~ Don4of4 [Talk] 00:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Criteria edit

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (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]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (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] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (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).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [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

  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Multiple issues exist:
    • Inconsistent capitalization
    • Improper capitalization
    • Missing articles
    • Words do not flow in the lead
    • Poor wording in areas (such as "Description and rules")
    • Transitions needed in areas
    • Metric units are incorrectly pluralized in areas
    • Words and/or phrases are used repeatedly (e.g. in "Description and rules")
      Fail
    (b) (MoS) This article is missing elements: Considering this article has children articles, these sections are probably needed.   Fail
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) References need to be in order. So this is bad: [8][2]   Fail
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) This has improved since last time...   Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (b) (focused) This article is rambling! This article needs to be in summary style.   Fail
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) No issues here.   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Some of the captions are weak. (Look for: "A player","A netball","Local mixed")   Fail

Result edit

Result Notes
  Fail This article needs a major revision and copyediting. It does not qualify for WP:GA status nor does it meet Wikipedia standards. Please help to improve this article by correcting the above issues.

Once it is ready, send me a message on my talk page and I will expedite the approval.

Discussion edit

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional Notes edit

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ 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 constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ 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.