Talk:2-satisfiability/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 04:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

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:
 * 1) 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:
 * 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Impeccable work! I can't find a single thing wrong with this.  My only comment is that it can be a bit of a wall of text at times, and might benefit from the inclusion of a couple more diagrams here and there, especially in the applications section, to help show what is going on.  I'm quite happy with this as a GA; good luck at FAC!  FalconK (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Impeccable work! I can't find a single thing wrong with this.  My only comment is that it can be a bit of a wall of text at times, and might benefit from the inclusion of a couple more diagrams here and there, especially in the applications section, to help show what is going on.  I'm quite happy with this as a GA; good luck at FAC!  FalconK (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Impeccable work! I can't find a single thing wrong with this.  My only comment is that it can be a bit of a wall of text at times, and might benefit from the inclusion of a couple more diagrams here and there, especially in the applications section, to help show what is going on.  I'm quite happy with this as a GA; good luck at FAC!  FalconK (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Impeccable work! I can't find a single thing wrong with this.  My only comment is that it can be a bit of a wall of text at times, and might benefit from the inclusion of a couple more diagrams here and there, especially in the applications section, to help show what is going on.  I'm quite happy with this as a GA; good luck at FAC!  FalconK (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)