Login
Login

Talk:Widest path problem/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

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

Reviewer: I am accepting this article for review :-D. Please give me at least two weeks; I have been busy lately, and I tend to be pretty thorough ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

=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.

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

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

  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)The prose is clear and spelling looks fine. My spell check caught that words with "re" at the beginning don't have a dash between the "re" and the word (i.e. "re-scheduled"), but its consistent and the words are typical ones that spell-checkers will miss-flag as incorrect. Passing.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}
    (b) (MoS)The article appears to meet and use the MOS consistently throughout.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}

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

    3. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (references)The article appears to use references and reference listing according to the manual of style.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}
    (b) (citations to reliable sources)The references used in the article appear to be secondary and reliable.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}
    (c) (original research)The article's content appears to be verifiable and doesn't appear to contain original research.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism)The article does not come back with any concerns when reviewing sources or running it against tools.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}

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

    4. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (major aspects)All major aspects, including points, vertices, trees, association, connections, distance, and weight. It appears to adequately cover areas that readers would expect to find in an encyclopedia.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}
    (b) (focused)The article stays well focused on the major aspects of the article subject and does not go off-topic.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}

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

    5. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Notes !! Result

    The article does not violate NPOV or add personal analysis, commentary, or bias.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}

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

    6. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Notes !! Result

    Other than edits made by those involved with recent improvements, the article does not undergo major changes or disputes.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}

  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)Images are user self-work, and do not have copyright issues.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)Images are appropriately used and well captioned.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}

==Result==

class="wikitable"
ResultNotes
{{GAHybrid/item|y}}The article was a great read. Sorry it took me so long to review. I got busy, and there was quite a lot of content to review. Thanks for letting me review it. Well done! :-)

==Discussion==

Please add any related discussion here.

=Additional notes=

{{Reflist}}