Talk:Stapes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 06:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

The article is well-written and complies with policies on prose, structure, and grammar. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Verifiable with no original research:

It always pleases me to see such a healthy collection of reliable published sources used by an article, especially when they're frequently cited in the text. Also, there is no evidence of original research in the article. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(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)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to cover all relevant aspects of the topic, and does not incorporate anything which sounds trivial or unnecessary for inclusion. It's left me satisfactorily informed on the subject, I'll add! :) Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(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.

While this is, to begin with, not the sort of topic you would generally imagine someone having bias towards/against, I shall still make note that there is no evidence of this taking place, in the text. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Going as far back as September 2011, nothing in the revision history suggests any edit warring. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

The images used are all validly licensed, and do not violate fair use policies - if it even applied I don't think they'd be in Wikimedia Commons, as they are. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Holy kit and kaboodle, batman! Thanks for your prompt review. I was anticipating having more than a day between nominating and posting a GA nomination (it's been about 2-3 hours!), to iron out the cracks identified in the peer review. Additionally it is New Year's Eve, so I'd be very grateful if you could give me a few days to beautify the article! --LT910001 (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for holding off, Wilhelmina Will, I've addressed the PR concerns and the article is now ready for a review. --LT910001 (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem; we're good to go! :) Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)