Talk:Tycho Brahe/GA1
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) 23:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
This article appears to be good. I hope to complete a review of it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I am looking forward to it. I am ready to respond to any queries.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Well written edit
Is the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct? edit
Yes. This article is written clearly. I think the introduction could possible be made more concise, but this may not be possible. The main body of the article is written very concisely, and doesn't fall into excessive detail. The spelling and grammar are all correct.
The grammar is too conversational and informal -- not up to Wikipedia standards.
Does it comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation? edit
The possible issue of the length of the lead section is present again. This article has an excellent layout, following a layout which is appropriate for a biography. Furthermore it includes images in relevant and appropriate places. In terms of wording it is suitable, and doesn't use weasel words. No use of fiction is present, and no lists are present.
Verifiable with no original research edit
Does it contain a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline edit
It does.
Are all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines edit
They are.
Does it contain no original research edit
No original research is present.
Does it contain copyright violations or plagiarism? edit
No copyright violations nor plagiarism are present.
Is it broad in its coverage edit
Does it addresses the main aspects of the topic? edit
It does.
Does it stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? edit
It also does this.
Neutrality edit
Does it represent viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each? edit
It does.
Stability edit
Does it change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute? edit
I am going to have to review the edit log and talk pages, but a cursory glance suggest it does not. 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE:A closer analysis reveals that no edit war or content dispute is present. 13:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Illustrated edit
Are images tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content? edit
They are.
edit
They are.