Jump to content

Talk:Monowai (seamount)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811:Greetings, is that review done? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'd say so, just the issues listed below to be fixed. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Pass. No issues.
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.
  • Pass. No issues.
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).
  • Pass. No issues.
2c. it contains no original research.
  • Pass - if 1877-1977 thing is fixed, that is.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Pass. No issues. Checked against major sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Pass. No major issues or areas of topic uncovered.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Pass. Covers subject well.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Pass. No issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Pass. Most work done in February. No edit wars.
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.
  • Pass. No issues.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Pass! Issues fixed - made some last-minute copyedits myself. Congrats to @Jo-Jo Eumerus: and everyone else who worked on this article. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]