Talk:Henry C. Berghoff/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Henry Berghoff (talk · contribs) 05:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 23:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I'll be reviewing this article. If you have any questions, just ask here or on my talk page. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Alexeyevitch, @Henry Berghoff, reminder ping? -- asilvering (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am still working thru this one. A related discussion on citation formatting is located here. Alexeyevitch(talk) 21:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Alexeyevitch, another ping - this review should probably be completed soon if possible. Otherwise it could be closed as unsuccessful (if you think the article is not close to GA standard) or put back into circulation for another try. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am waiting for User:Henry Berghoff to get online again, if he's not here soon then I will consider. Alexeyevitch(talk) 01:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Alexeyevitch, another ping - this review should probably be completed soon if possible. Otherwise it could be closed as unsuccessful (if you think the article is not close to GA standard) or put back into circulation for another try. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am still working thru this one. A related discussion on citation formatting is located here. Alexeyevitch(talk) 21:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Alexeyevitch, @Henry Berghoff, reminder ping? -- asilvering (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. | I am making the decision to close this article as unsuccessful due to inactivity and WP:V issues with the sources. I truly hope this will not discourage you from trying a second time. This can be a GA in my opinion once some extra work has been done and the article meets the criteria. |
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.