Jump to content

User:Chaosdruid/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA review details - Checklist and current review

Checklist

[edit]

List

[edit]

Green tickY = pass : (has hammer) = needs further checking/work : Red XN = oops! fail

  1. Initial pass fail criteria - Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#First_things_to_look_for
  2. Checklinks [1] (bear in mind this is not as accurate as it could be, check any dodgy seeming ones.)
  3. MoS
    1. Layout
    2. Scripts to run (Dashes & hyphens etc.)
    3. Consistency of style (e.g. dd-mm-yyyy x4; mm-dd-yyyy x1)
    4. CopyVio/Plagiarism - copy a few sections of text and run through Google
  4. Prose & refs
    1. Lead: too long/short, items not in body, etc.
    2. Body: (of text)
    3. Refs
      1. Reliability (blogs etc)
      2. Dead?
      3. Accurate? - they say what the article says
  5. Broad coverage
    1. Major aspects
    2. Coverage
  6. Neutral?
  7. Stable?
  8. Images
    1. Too many/few, placement, relevance
    2. alt= present? free use? fair-use rationale?

Template

[edit]
  • aye, nay, wtf, and ???
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: