Login
Login

Talk:Glencora Ralph/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Glencora Ralph/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Glencora Ralph/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 19:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

= Review =

=Criteria=

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

{{see|WP:WIAGA}}

A good article is—

  1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

    2. : (a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}}; and

    : (b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1b}}. Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

  2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

    3. : (a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2a}};

    : (b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2b}};Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. and

    : (c) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2c}}.

  3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

    4. : (a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3a}};This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. and

    : (b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3b}}.

  4. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|4}}.

  5. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.
    6. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

  6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:
    7. Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

    : (a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6a}}; and

    : (b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6b}}.The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

=Review=

  1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

    2. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (prose)No concerns.{{GAHybrid/item|yes}}
    (b) (MoS)No concerns.| {{GAHybrid/item|yes}}

  2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

    3. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (references)No problems{{GAHybrid/item|yes}}
    (b) (citations to reliable sources)No problems{{GAHybrid/item|yes}}
    (c) (original research)No WP:OR.{{GAHybrid/item|yes}}

  3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

    4. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (major aspects)Covers the career well.{{GAHybrid/item|yes}}
    (b) (focused)Specific in its highlights.{{GAHybrid/item|yes}}

  4. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|4}}.

    5. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Notes !! Result

    No problems with neutrality.{{GAHybrid/item|yes}}

  5. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.

    6. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Notes !! Result

    No edit wars.{{GAHybrid/item|yes}}

  6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

    7. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)Looks good.{{GAHybrid/item|yes}}
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)No concerns.{{GAHybrid/item|yes}}

==Result==

class="wikitable"
ResultNotes
{{GAHybrid/item|yes}}Another good article!

==Discussion==

Looks good, but just remember to update with the 2012 team picks.

=Additional Notes=

{{Reflist}}