Talk:Vailuluʻu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:15, 3 September 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) 14:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811:Greetings, is the review completed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, No, not yet. I've been very busy this week and haven't had time to complete it yet - will get it done in the next couple of days! Thanks for your patience. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:46, 6 September 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.	Went through and did a copyedit for minor issues. No major issues. Pass.
	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. Mostly scientific papers.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass. No issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked against several sources and generally. No issues. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass. No issues - no other major areas of necessary coverage found.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very good coverage. Geological detail nicely linked and/or explained. Pass.
	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.	Most work completed in February. Stable. Pass.
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.	Pass. No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.

This passes GAN! Very nice article. Congrats to @Jo-Jo Eumerus: and all those who worked on it. Will do the needful to wrap up the nomination now. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]