Talk:I-No/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: ConcurrentState (talk · contribs) 05:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm planning on reviewing this article.

I did a lot of preliminary work before formally starting the review, so I don't expect it to take more than a day or two to finalize.

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.	Well written in a way that makes it easy to read. No spelling or grammar issues detected.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article follows MoS. Of note are good use of layout, making the article easy on the eyes, and good use of sections.
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).	Proper use of WP:IC. Spot-check of the sample of sources covering roughly 1/3 of the sources shows that the text in the article is backed by reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research detected, everything seems backed by reliable sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations or plagiarism detected. Did manual spot-checks and used both CopyPatrol and Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Proper use of WP:IC and attributions where statements from elsewhere are used.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article's scope is appropriate, not too narrow and not too wide.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does a great job at balancing detail according to WP:DETAIL. Lead is sufficiently and appropriately summarized and to the point, while the rest of the article goes into enough detail without overindulging or needing to be split off into subarticles.
	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.	Article appears to be stable. There seems to have been a minor misunderstanding between editors after commencing the review, but that seems to have been resolved and hasn't affected the overall stability of the article.
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.	All media is properly tagged with non-free status and valid non-free rationales. All media also adheres to WP:NFCC#3 by virtue of them being low resolution.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Media is relevant (and arguably essential) to topic and has suitable captions as per WP:CAP.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm passing this article with flying colors based on the GAN criteria. I'd like to extend my congratulations to the nominator. It's clear they've put in a lot of work, and I'm glad to see that it paid off. Great job!

Passed! Great job! ConcurrentState (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.