Difference between revisions of "Template:GAchecklist"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Steven Walling
imported>Peteforsyth
(few details)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
FEEL FREE TO REMOVE NON-NUMBERED HEADINGS IN THE SECTIONS BELOW,
 
FEEL FREE TO REMOVE NON-NUMBERED HEADINGS IN THE SECTIONS BELOW,
 
IF YOU PREFER A MORE FREE-FORM STYLE; KEEP THE SIX NUMBERED HEADINGS, THOUGH.
 
IF YOU PREFER A MORE FREE-FORM STYLE; KEEP THE SIX NUMBERED HEADINGS, THOUGH.
ANY EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION SHOULD BE PUT IN A SEPARATE SECTION, BELOW THE BLUE BOX. -->
+
ANY EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION SHOULD BE PUT IN A SEPARATE SECTION, BELOW THE GREEN BOX. -->
  
 
'''1. Well written?:'''
 
'''1. Well written?:'''
Line 34: Line 34:
  
 
'''Overall''':  
 
'''Overall''':  
:Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|}} <!-- Add "yes" or "no" to this template when the review is complete -->  
+
:Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|}} <!-- ADD "yes" OR "no" TO THIS TEMPLATE WHEN THE REVIEW IS COMPLET, AFTER "check|"  (e.g., {{GAList/check|yes}}) -->  
  
 
<!-- OVERALL COMMENTS. AT MINIMUM, ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK OF THE CONTRIBUTING WRITERS AND EDITORS.
 
<!-- OVERALL COMMENTS. AT MINIMUM, ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK OF THE CONTRIBUTING WRITERS AND EDITORS.
COMMENTS MAY BE MADE DURING REVIEW, AND/OR UPON COMPLETION. -->
+
COMMENTS MAY BE MADE DURING REVIEW, AND/OR UPON COMPLETION.
 +
ALSO REQUEST THAT NOMINATOR PERFORM A GA REVIEW. -->
  
 
:''If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a [[WP:GAR|reassessment]]. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|renominate]] it.''
 
:''If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a [[WP:GAR|reassessment]]. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|renominate]] it.''
 
</div>
 
</div>

Revision as of 01:34, 18 January 2008

Good Article nomination

This article was nominated for good article status. The review began on January 20, 2026. Below is an evaluation of the article, according to the six good article criteria.


1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?: Pass

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:


If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a reassessment. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply renominate it.