Talk:WE Communications/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 14:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be conducting the review for this article. I'll do a preliminary assessment first, then we will move onto the template. Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I also have a little more experience with GA articles since I first nominated it. I'll go through your feedback and improve the article shortly. CorporateM (Talk) 14:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done with round 1. Some of this I should have been able to identify myself before GA nominating, so I appreciate your patience. CorporateM (Talk) 16:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!Retrolord (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	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.
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: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Regarding you getting permission for that picture, if the employee provided it willingly in the knowledge it would be used for this purpose isnt that permission enough? Would this qualify as fair use? This is what I have: Me: "This one: WISE 2011 021.JPG looks like a good replacement for the current somewhat poor image. Is Waggener willing to donate the image to Wikipedia under this free license? If so, I'll go upload it and advise on what we need from you RE license permissions." "Kate: Yes, please let me know next steps." I'll see if it passes muster with OTRS. I could also just put the original image from Flickr back-in until we get licensing approval from Waggener. CorporateM (Talk) 14:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Probably better to do that just so we can get this through. Article is fine with the old picture. Put the old one back and aslong as i don't see anything else i'll pass it. Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)  Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.