Talk:Mozilla Public License/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 15:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to Review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead section has too many references - the lead is supposed to be a summary or an overview of the main text so it shouldn't have to have its statements referenced (since the sources are supposed to appear within the other sections of the article. Please adjust. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it 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. All in-line 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Reference #34 is faulty - too many redirects. Shearonink (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References #25-#36 are basically bare URLs as references and, as such, will be more prone to linkrot. They need additional information, such as website, publisher, date accessed, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the first paragraph in the "Terms" section appears to be unreferenced. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool, no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No edit wars. Yay. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
While images can be nice to have in an article, they are not a GA necessity. Shearonink (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This Review is now closed. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination as they do not have the time to work on the article at the moment. This withdrawal is in no way a reflection on the article's present quality or on the nominator. Shearonink (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]