Talk:Bath Abbey/GA1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Passed Good Article Assessment |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| '''1.''' {{GAC|1}}: <!-- Well written. Add comments to the ends of the lines below. --> |
| '''1.''' {{GAC|1}}: <!-- Well written. Add comments to the ends of the lines below. --> |
||
| |
| |
||
{{GATable/item|1a| |
{{GATable/item|1a|+|Written well with spelling correct in British English. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{GATable/item|1b| |
{{GATable/item|1b|+|Good use of headings. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
|- valign="top" |
|- valign="top" |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| '''2.''' {{GAC|2}}: <!-- Verifiable. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). --> |
| '''2.''' {{GAC|2}}: <!-- Verifiable. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). --> |
||
| |
| |
||
{{GATable/item|2a| |
{{GATable/item|2a|+|All sources referenced. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{GATable/item|2b| |
{{GATable/item|2b|+|Good use of inline citations. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{GATable/item|2c| |
{{GATable/item|2c|+|No Original Research found in article. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
|- valign="top" |
|- valign="top" |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| '''3.''' {{GAC|3}}: <!-- Broad. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). --> |
| '''3.''' {{GAC|3}}: <!-- Broad. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). --> |
||
| |
| |
||
{{GATable/item|3a|+|This artice expresses all the main points about the history, architecture and uses of the abbey. |
|||
{{GATable/item|3a|?| |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{GATable/item|3b|+|This article explains about the abbey in an informative and comprehensive way without going off topic. |
|||
{{GATable/item|3b|?| |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
<!-- Neutral. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). --> |
<!-- Neutral. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). --> |
||
{{GATable/item|4| |
{{GATable/item|4|+|This article is not biased towards any aspect of the Abbey. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
<!-- Stable. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). --> |
<!-- Stable. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). --> |
||
{{GATable/item|5| |
{{GATable/item|5|+|No edit wars, at least not in recent history. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
|- valign="top" |
|- valign="top" |
||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| '''6.''' {{GAC|6}}: <!-- Images. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). --> |
| '''6.''' {{GAC|6}}: <!-- Images. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). --> |
||
| |
| |
||
{{GATable/item|6a| |
{{GATable/item|6a|+|Images are all tagged with their copyright status. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{GATable/item|6b| |
{{GATable/item|6b|+|All images are on-topic and have suitable captions. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
<!-- Overall. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). --> |
<!-- Overall. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). --> |
||
{{GATable/item|7|+|This article is a well balenced article with a good use of references and images and is well-formatted and written clearly and neutrally. I see no reason why I cannot pass it as a Good Article. [[User:Jamietw|Jamietw]] ([[User talk:Jamietw|talk]]) 17:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{GATable/item|7|<!-- Replace this comment with your final assessment: "y" or "n" -->| |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
|} |
|} |
||
Revision as of 17:11, 27 September 2011
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jamietw (talk · contribs · count) 15:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Written well with spelling correct in British English. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Good use of headings. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | All sources referenced. |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Good use of inline citations. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | No Original Research found in article. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This artice expresses all the main points about the history, architecture and uses of the abbey. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | This article explains about the abbey in an informative and comprehensive way without going off topic. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | This article is not biased towards any aspect of the Abbey. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit wars, at least not in recent history. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images are all tagged with their copyright status. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All images are on-topic and have suitable captions. |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | This article is a well balenced article with a good use of references and images and is well-formatted and written clearly and neutrally. I see no reason why I cannot pass it as a Good Article. Jamietw (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |