Talk:Clinton Romesha/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this one. Review forthcoming in the next day or two. Thanks in advance for the work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough[edit]

This appears excellent so far: strong prose, solidly sourced. I've made some minor changes per WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK, and some very small changes for style and grammar. Please feel free to revert any you disagree with. I'll begin the checklist in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

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. Prose is excellent; spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
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).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Some additional detail could still be added, such as his biology degree from Pueblo Community Coll.[1](free version here), or perhaps a blurb from Panetta's remarks in awarding the medal.[2] But these details hardly count as a main aspect.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass.