Talk:Noisy miner/GA1

Pass

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ankit Maity (talk · contribs) 08:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass
Pass/Fail:

Please note that if the problems are not solved within 7 days the nomination will be rejected.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 08:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence. (GA criteria not fulfilled)~~--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 08:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)>[reply]

All captions with full stops ARE complete sentences.

~~See also section missing.~~

I don't know what this comment means, could you please explain it?

~~Social Organization has to be renamed to Social organization per capitalization rules of section headings.~~

Done

~~Whole numbers like 10 have to be spelt out in words.~~--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 08:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Have to be"?? Doesn't make sense for times and measurements, and in any case is not recommended for numbers larger than 10.

You have failed the prose. Could you make some comment as to what you see the problem is with the prose? Marj (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from another editor

I think there are some misunderstandings here:

See also sections are not required in articles.
Whole numbers like 10 do not have to be spelled in words. In text, usually numbers under 10 should be spelled out, while those ten and over should be rendered as numbers. However, much depends on the editor's judgment and the context in the article, so this guideline is flexible.

e.g. It would be wrong to spell out the numbers in "24–28 centimetres" into words.

Before saying "you have failed the prose", the reviewer should present a list of prose problems that need to be fixed while the article is on hold, letting the nominator know specifically what must be fixed before the article can pass.

This is stated in the guideline Mistakes to avoid in review.

When reviewing an article, do not just describe its shortcomings, provide suggestions to fix them.
Using the Good article criteria as a guide to organize a review is a good thing, but do not merely use it as a checklist. For example:

"This article violates criterion 1 of the Good article criteria" with no further information does not help anyone improve the article. Instead, try something like: "This article is dominated by its plot summary and takes an "in-universe" perspective. According to the Manual of Style, an article about a work of fiction should be written primarily from an "out-of-universe" perspective. That needs to be fixed before this can be a Good article."

Hopefully the reviewer will revisit this review and provide the nominator the necessary information to improve the article.

MathewTownsend (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems have been addressed.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 15:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.