Talk:Cyberbullying/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ProgrammingGeek (talk · contribs) 15:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Criteria[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) 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);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review[edit]
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | Continuity issues. The article sometimes feels disjointed, perhaps consider making it more prosaic. |  Fail
|
| (b) (MoS) | I can't see any MoS violations here, so I'm going to say yes to this criterion. |  Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | A few deadlinks (including references 8, 53, and 63), other references looking good. |  On hold
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | While a lot of this article is sourced, some sections (specifically under 'awareness') need improved referencing. | Fail
|
| (c) (original research) | No original research, except possibly the unsourced concerns above. | Fail
|
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | Everything looks good! There are a few red flags thrown by the copyvio detector, however, this is more likely just coincidence as they are terms that will be used in an article on this subject. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | There is a good focus on all aspects of the topic in the article. | Pass
|
| (b) (focused) | Focused enough so that the reader gets a view of its forms, responses, etc. | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| I can't feel any bias, seems to be compliant with WP:NPOV. | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| No history of edit wars. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | No non-free images used. | Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | All okay. | Pass
|
Result[edit]
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Fail |
This is a good article, but not a Good Article. A few issues arose with the prose, deadlinks, and references. With these fixes I am sure this article can pass at the next assessment. |
Discussion[edit]
Please add any related discussion here.
I would like to add actual Twitter examples from the 45th President of the United States of America, via Twitter profile @realDonaldTrump, as actual examples of cyber bullying. Twitter is a popular social media communications channel. The following examples, which took place on Twitter, should be viewed as 1 complete incident of cyber bullying directed at a couple of television talk show hosts from the MSNBC television network. Because Twitter has a character limitation, the comments were distributed over 2 "tweets".
- Cyber Bullying Example 1/2: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/880408582310776832
- Cyber Bullying Example 2/2: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/880410114456465411
Digitalprotector (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Let me know when you have time to start on the review and I will be available to start working on it. Shaded0 (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Additional notes[edit]
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.