Talk:Sceriman family/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: KAVEBEAR (talk · contribs) 04:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Can you list Matthee 2012? The footnotes links to nowhere.KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

@LouisAragon: This article looks good. All I see is a problem with a few of the footnotes. Please fix that, ping me and I will take another look before passing. Good job.KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: Hey, thanks for reviewing this article. Just fixed the reference in question and improved another reference as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was still a problem with the Harvard referencing style but I changed it myself. Article is good to go.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]