Talk:Dansby Swanson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cherrell410 (talk · contribs) 00:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

First Thoughts

Just glancing throughout the article, it looks like the article is well-sourced and has lots of information, including statistics, dates, and pictures. I'm already thinking that it will be a successful article.

Immediate failures

Passes all immediate failure criteria, making it further reviewable.

Criteria

I took all of the criteria listed from Wikipedia:Good article criteria.

Well Written

• The prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience.
• Spelling and grammar are correct, and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Verifiable with no original research

• Contains a list of all references
• All inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons.
• It contains no original research.
• It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage

• It addresses the main aspects of the topic.
• It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

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

• Media is tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
• Media is relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Final Thoughts

I truly and deeply feel that this article meets all criteria and good article expectations, and deserves to be a good article.