Article (edit | visual edit | history ) · Article talk (edit | history ) · Watch
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs ) 23:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Reply
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk )
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Reply
Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk ) 07:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Reply
1: Well-written
Check for WP:LEAD :
Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section : Done
Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE ): Done
Check for Introductory text : Done
Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO ): Done
Check for Relative emphasis : Done
Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN ): Done
Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE ): Done
Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE ): Done
Check for Proper names and titles : Done
Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN ): None
Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG ): None
Check for Pronunciation : None
Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK ): Done
Check for Biographies : NA
Check for Organisms : NA
Check for Biographies of living persons : NA
Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT ): Done
Check for Non-English titles :
Check for Usage in first sentence :
Check for Separate section usage :
Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH ): Done
Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER ): None
Done
Check for WP:LAYOUT : Done
Check for Body sections : WP:BODY , MOS:BODY . Done
Check for Headings and sections : Done
Check for Section templates and summary style : Done
Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS ): Done
Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX ): Done
Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER ): Done
Check for Works or publications : Done
Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO ): Done
Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR ): Done
Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER ): Done
Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL ): Done
Check for Links to sister projects : Done
Check for Navigation templates : Done
Check for Formatting : Done
Check for Images (WP:LAYIM ): Done
Check for Links : Done
Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE ): Done
Done
Check for WP:WTW : Done
Check for Words that may introduce bias : Done
Check for Puffery (WP:PEA ): Done
Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL ): Done
Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL ): Done
Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED ): Done
Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED ): Done
Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY ): Done
Check for Expressions that lack precision : Done
Check for Offensive material (WP:F*** ): Done
Check for WP:MOSFICT : Done
Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world ): Done
Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI ): Done
Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT ): Done
2: Verifiable with no original research
Done
Check for WP:RS : Done
Rough check with other FAs: Starfish , Sea , Crocodilia
Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING ): (contentious ) Done
Is it contentious?: Yes
Does the ref indeed support the material?:
Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING ): Done
Who is the author?:
Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
What else has the author published?:
Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING ): Done
Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS ):
Done
Check for inline citations WP:MINREF : Done
Check for Direct quotations : Done
Check for Likely to be challenged : Done
Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP ): NA
Done
Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY ): Done
Check for synthesis (WP:SYN ): Done
Check for original images (WP:OI ): Done
3: Broad in its coverage
Done
Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources :
Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS :
Check for Out of scope :
Check for The range of material that belongs in the article :
Check for All material that is notable is covered :
Check for All material that is referenced is covered :
Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered :
Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge :
Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC ):
4: Neutral
Done
4. Fair representation without bias: Done
Check for POV (WP:YESPOV ): Done
Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING ): Done
Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE ): Done
Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE ): Done
Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS ): Done
Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID ): Done
Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV ): Done
Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL ): Done
Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE ): Done
Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV ): Done
Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ): Done
Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI ): None
Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV ): None
5: Stable: No edit wars , etc: Yes
6: Images Done (NFC with a valid FUR )
As per the above checklist, there are no issues with the article and it’s a GA. The prose quality in particular is fantastic. Thanks, CC, very much for your diligence in writing such great articles.
Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Reply
Thank you so much. Chiswick Chap (talk ) 06:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Reply