Talk:Juniper MX Series/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I am accepting this article as my second GA review :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Look forward to your review. CorporateM (Talk) 13:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

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

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar is consistently correct throughout.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article looks to well-adhere to the manual of style.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	All of the references supplied appear to be secondary and reliable.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The sources listed are secondary and appear to be reliable and have no issues.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The major details, facts, content, and information are all referenced by sources and do not appear to be supported by original research.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The article does not violate WP:COPYVIO.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article appears to cover all of the major areas that I would reasonably expect to see if I were looking up this series.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article appears to be on-topic throughout.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article adheres to a neutral point of view. It does not speak favorably or negatively about the series without references.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The article has no issues in this aspect.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The image is properly tagged and is not a policy or copyright violation.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The image appears to be appropriately used and captioned.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The article looks to be well-created and it appears to deserve the title as a good article. A big thanks to CorporateM for nominating it; it was an interesting read!

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional notes

^ 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.

[1] 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.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] 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.

[4] 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.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] 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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]