GA review details - Checklist and current review

Checklist

edit

List

edit

 Y = pass :   = needs further checking/work :  N = oops! fail

  1. Initial pass fail criteria - Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#First_things_to_look_for
  2. Checklinks [1] (bear in mind this is not as accurate as it could be, check any dodgy seeming ones.)
  3. MoS
    1. Layout
    2. Scripts to run (Dashes & hyphens etc.)
    3. Consistency of style (e.g. dd-mm-yyyy x4; mm-dd-yyyy x1)
    4. CopyVio/Plagiarism - copy a few sections of text and run through Google
  4. Prose & refs
    1. Lead: too long/short, items not in body, etc.
    2. Body: (of text)
    3. Refs
      1. Reliability (blogs etc)
      2. Dead?
      3. Accurate? - they say what the article says
  5. Broad coverage
    1. Major aspects
    2. Coverage
  6. Neutral?
  7. Stable?
  8. Images
    1. Too many/few, placement, relevance
    2. alt= present? free use? fair-use rationale?

Template

edit
  • aye, nay, wtf, and ???
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: