Talk:Beiyue Temple

You've done an excellent job, User:Zeus1234!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

:This review is transcluded from Talk:Beiyue Temple/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{#if:|

1. Is it reasonably well written?
2. :A. Prose quality: {{GAList/check|Nay}}
3. :: {{#if:Two very short sections needing to be expanded.|Two very short sections needing to be expanded.|}}
4. :B. MoS compliance: {{GAList/check|Aye}}
5. :: {{#if:||}}
6. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
7. :A. References to sources: {{GAList/check|Aye}}
8. :: {{#if:||}}
9. :B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: {{GAList/check|Aye}}
10. :: {{#if:||}}
11. :C. No original research: {{GAList/check|Aye}}
12. :: {{#if:||}}
13. Is it broad in its coverage?
14. :A. Major aspects: {{GAList/check|Nay}}
15. :: {{#if:The murals and the stelae are not describe well enough. The mural description is not good and requires expansion. I will leave some tags to this article. I would think most people are unfamiliar with the term "stelae" and would perfer to have this described/linked.|The murals and the stelae are not describe well enough. The mural description is not good and requires expansion. I will leave some tags to this article. I would think most people are unfamiliar with the term "stelae" and would perfer to have this described/linked.|}}
16. :B. Focused: {{GAList/check|Aye}}
17. :: {{#if:||}}
18. Is it neutral?
19. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|Aye}}
20. :: {{#if:||}}
21. Is it stable?
22. : No edit wars, etc: {{GAList/check|Aye}}
23. :: {{#if:||}}
24. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
25. :A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: {{GAList/check|Aye}}
26. :: {{#if:||}}
27. :B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: {{GAList/check|Aye}}
28. :: {{#if:It would be nice to have a picture of the murals.|It would be nice to have a picture of the murals.|}}
29. Overall:
30. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|Nay}}
31. :: Very short and not verydescriptive sections that desperately require expansion. See above.} --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:This review is transcluded from Talk:Beiyue Temple/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{#if:|

1. Is it reasonably well written?
2. :A. Prose quality: {{GAList/check|y}}
3. :: {{#if:||}}
4. :B. MoS compliance: {{GAList/check|y}}
5. :: {{#if:||}}
6. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
7. :A. References to sources: {{GAList/check|y}}
8. :: {{#if:||}}
9. :B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: {{GAList/check|y}}
10. :: {{#if:||}}
11. :C. No original research: {{GAList/check|y}}
12. :: {{#if:||}}
13. Is it broad in its coverage?
14. :A. Major aspects: {{GAList/check|y}}
15. :: {{#if:||}}
16. :B. Focused: {{GAList/check|y}}
17. :: {{#if:||}}
18. Is it neutral?
19. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
20. :: {{#if:||}}
21. Is it stable?
22. : No edit wars, etc: {{GAList/check|y}}
23. :: {{#if:||}}
24. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
25. :A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: {{GAList/check|y}}
26. :: {{#if:||}}
27. :B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: {{GAList/check|y}}
28. :: {{#if:||}}
29. Overall:
30. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
31. :: {{#if:Great improvement form the first GA review. Looks and is much better. Good job editors. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)|Great improvement form the first GA review. Looks and is much better. Good job editors. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)|}}

For the future of this article, hopefully to Featured Article, I will leave the FA Criteria one this page. As the article is further unproved, the criteria met may be checked off as done. Please also consider reading WP:1A. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 18:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

1. It is—

• (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
• (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
• (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
• (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
• (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:

• (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
• (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
• (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (Smith 2007, p. 1.) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).

3. Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).