Talk:Robeson County, North Carolina/GA1

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Passed. > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 16:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Asheiou (talk · contribs)

Criteria edit

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

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:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Prose had a couple of minor grammatical errors, but I've just gone ahead and fixed them. Overall, quite readable.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	No MoS issues that I can see.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Reference section exists and is in the correct format.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Extensive citations to books, local news, and a local encyclopædia. Every claim made is backed up by a citation.	Pass
(c) (original research)	As I live in the UK, I have the GDPR to contend with in fact-checking sources, especially with sites such as nrcolumbus.com simply blocking my access. With other sources being books, I cannot easily access them either. I spotchecked several sources that I could access and everything I can see is backed up correctly.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Couldn't find any copyvio from my own readthrough and Earwig's Copyvio Detector.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article covers everything you'd expect from an article of its nature. It covers the history of the county in great detail.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Everything mentioned is relevant and the article does not get sidetracked.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
Article seems neutral to me.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
The only thing I can see even remotely resembling an edit war in the recent edit history was just a civil disagreement that followed the WP:3RR.	Pass

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

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images are all fair use, public domain, or copyleft.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Images all seem relevant and are captioned correctly.	Pass

Result edit

Result	Notes
Pass	All seems good to me! This is a very comprehensive article covering history, demography, economy, culture, and everything else you would expect from an article in an encyclopædia. > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 16:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Discussion edit

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

^ 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.

Add topic

[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 unconstructive 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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]