Talk:Distance geometry/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Adamant.pwn (talk · contribs) 23:22, 29 July 2019 (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. | Check | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Check | |
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. | Check | |
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. | Check | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
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. | Check | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Check | |
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. | Check | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Check | |
7. Overall assessment. |
In general, all issues seem easily fixable, except for "Characterization via ... determinants" section. This one seems to need a lot of improvement. Please, update here whenever you fix something or reply to comments. I'll look into it again later. |
Thanks for your very detailed review. I just want to say that the first sentence was an astonishing coincidence, and there is no copyright violation. Now I'll have a cool story to tell.
Since I have no time to update the page, I would have to leave it at that for now. Maybe later I'll update it as suggested. pony in a strange land (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- It actually seems that sentence in wikipedia article was there (since 2014) before the work (published in 2015), so maybe they just copied it. (talk/contribs) 03:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Adamant.pwn and Cosmia Nebula: Hey folks. Just wanted to check in on how this review is progressing since there hasn't seem to been any progress in the past month. :) --Dom497 (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. There was no update from pony in a strange land yet. Should I drop the nomination in this case? (talk/contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Adamant.pwn: I would make one last effort to notify them. If they don't respond within a reasonable amount of time then you can just fail the nomination.--Dom497 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Adamant.pwn, I have just posted to the nominator's talk page that they need to take action, otherwise the nomination will likely close in a matter of days. May I suggest that if nothing is done, the nomination be closed by the end of September, or if you want to be exceptionally lenient, no later than October 4, two months after they posted
Maybe later I'll update it as suggested
in their sole edit to this page. Under the circumstances and the more than generous delay, I certainly wouldn't leave it open any longer than that. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, fine with me. (talk/contribs) 01:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Adamant.pwn: Still no response from the nominato and the date is October 4, so maybe time to fail this article. HawkAussie (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- It seems so. Nomination is failed. (talk/contribs) 10:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Adamant.pwn, I have just posted to the nominator's talk page that they need to take action, otherwise the nomination will likely close in a matter of days. May I suggest that if nothing is done, the nomination be closed by the end of September, or if you want to be exceptionally lenient, no later than October 4, two months after they posted