Difference between revisions of "Template:GAchecklist"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>CaroleHenson (→Good Article nomination: comments so far) |
imported>CaroleHenson |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
'''1. Well written?:''' | '''1. Well written?:''' | ||
− | :Prose quality: | + | :Prose quality: |
:[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] compliance: | :[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] compliance: | ||
<!-- PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE LEAD SECTION, WHICH IS FREQUENTLY PROBLEMATIC --> | <!-- PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE LEAD SECTION, WHICH IS FREQUENTLY PROBLEMATIC --> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
'''2. Factually accurate and [[WP:V|verifiable]]?:''' | '''2. Factually accurate and [[WP:V|verifiable]]?:''' | ||
− | :References to sources: | + | :References to sources: |
− | :Citations to reliable sources, where required: | + | :Citations to reliable sources, where required: |
− | :[[WP:NOR|No original research]]: | + | :[[WP:NOR|No original research]]: |
'''3. Broad in coverage?:''' | '''3. Broad in coverage?:''' | ||
− | :Major aspects: | + | :Major aspects: |
− | :Focused: | + | :Focused: |
'''4. Reflects a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]?:''' | '''4. Reflects a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]?:''' | ||
− | :Fair representation without bias: | + | :Fair representation without bias: |
'''5. Reasonably stable?''' | '''5. Reasonably stable?''' | ||
− | :No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): | + | :No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): |
'''6. Illustrated by [[WP:IMAGES|images]], when possible and appropriate?:''' {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if: {{{images|}}}|{{{images}}}| Pass }} | '''6. Illustrated by [[WP:IMAGES|images]], when possible and appropriate?:''' {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if: {{{images|}}}|{{{images}}}| Pass }} |
Revision as of 04:20, 31 August 2014
Good Article nomination
- This article was nominated for good article status. The review began on September 16, 2025. 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.
See also
- {{GAList}}