Talk:Cross-site leaks/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Equalwidth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I disagree with this assessment, I do not believe that there is any original research and the images have been appropriately tagged with the correct licensing. Additionally, while not all of the aspects of the topic have been comprehensively covered, I believe they are sufficient to provide enough context to lay per into the topic. Similarly, while the prose might not be GA standard, I don't think they are far enough away to merit a quick fail. Due to this, I have renominated the article. -- Sohom (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]