Difference between revisions of "Template:GAList2/doc"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>MusikAnimal
m (rm commentary)
imported>SNUGGUMS
(sources always need to be reliable)
Line 72: Line 72:
 
#:A. Has an [[Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_footers|appropriate reference section]]: {{GAList/check|y}}  
 
#:A. Has an [[Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_footers|appropriate reference section]]: {{GAList/check|y}}  
 
#::  
 
#::  
#:B. Citation to reliable sources [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria/where necessary|where necessary]]: {{GAList/check|y}}  
+
#:B. Cites [[WP:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]]: {{GAList/check|y}}  
 
#::  
 
#::  
 
#:C. [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]: {{GAList/check|???}}
 
#:C. [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]: {{GAList/check|???}}

Revision as of 02:11, 5 June 2015

Usage

{{subst:GAList2
|overcom=
|1a=
|1acom=
|1b=
|1bcom=
|2a=
|2acom=
|2b=
|2bcom=
|2c=
|2ccom=
|3a=
|3acom=
|3b=
|3bcom=
|4=
|4com=
|5=
|5com=
|6a=
|6acom=
|6b=
|6bcom=
|7=
|7com=
}}

Available arguments are y, n, aye, nay, wtf, and ???; some synonyms are also available for these arguments. Any other argument or no argument at all gives an undecided mark.

The comment lines ("com") are used for additional notes. If no comment is included, the comment line doesn't appear. This is also true of "overcom", which allows for general comments before the subsections.

Note that the template should be substituted, as the GA guidelines are reviewed from time to time and this template may be changed.

Example

{{subst:GAList2
|overcom=This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
|1a=y
|1acom=Well done.
|1b=y
|2a=y
|2b=y
|2c=???
|2ccom=Some of the information in the third section appears to be OR.
|3a=y
|3b=y
|4=y
|5=
|6a=n
|6b=y
|7=n
|7com=Good luck with improving this article!
}}

results in:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Well done.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Cites reliable sources:
    C. No original research:
    Some of the information in the third section appears to be OR.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Good luck with improving this article!

See also