Difference between revisions of "Template:GAchecklist"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>CaroleHenson
(Reverted to revision 619358767 by 23W (talk): Yikes made edits to the master. (TW))
imported>SNUGGUMS
(link, tweak)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
<div style="padding:5px; border: 3px solid #50C878;">
 
<div style="padding:5px; border: 3px solid #50C878;">
  
:''This article was nominated for [[WP:GA|good article]] status. The review began on {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}}, {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}}. Below is an evaluation of the article, according to the [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|six good article criteria]].''
+
:''This article was nominated for [[WP:good article|good article]] status. The review began on {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}}, {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}}. Below is an evaluation of the article, according to the [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|six good article criteria]].''
  
 
<!-- ANY INTRODUCTORY REMARKS GO HERE.
 
<!-- ANY INTRODUCTORY REMARKS GO HERE.
Line 14: Line 14:
 
<!-- 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:Verifiability|verifiable]]?:'''
:References to sources:
+
:References layout:
:Citations to reliable sources, where required:
+
:Citations to [[WP:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]]:
:[[WP:NOR|No original research]]:
+
:[[WP:No original research|No original research]]:
  
 
'''3. Broad in coverage?:'''
 
'''3. Broad in coverage?:'''
Line 23: Line 23:
 
:Focused:
 
:Focused:
  
'''4. Reflects a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]?:'''
+
'''4. Reflects a [[WP:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]?:'''
 
:Fair representation without bias:
 
:Fair representation without bias:
  
'''5. Reasonably stable?'''
+
'''5. Stable?'''
:No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
+
:No edit wars, content disputes, 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 }}
 
:Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have [[Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Use_rationale|fair use rationales]]:
 
:Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have [[Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Use_rationale|fair use rationales]]:
:Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with [[WP:CAP|suitable captions]]:
+
:Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with [[WP:Manual of Style/Captions|suitable captions]]:
  
 
'''Overall''':  
 
'''Overall''':  
Line 40: Line 40:
 
ALSO SUGGEST THAT NOMINATOR PERFORM A GA REVIEW. -->
 
ALSO SUGGEST 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:Good article reassessment|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><noinclude>{{big|'''See also'''}}
 
</div><noinclude>{{big|'''See also'''}}
 
* {{tl|GAList}}
 
* {{tl|GAList}}
 
[[Category:Wikipedia GA templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 
[[Category:Wikipedia GA templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 
</noinclude>
 
</noinclude>

Revision as of 22:15, 23 October 2014

Good Article nomination

This article was nominated for good article status. The review began on September 15, 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 layout:
Citations to reliable sources:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Stable?

No edit wars, content disputes, 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