Talk:2004 Masters (snooker)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 04:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey, this looks like a wonderful article. Kindly feel free to revert any changes/mistakes I make as I review this article!




 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Almost three weeks have passed and with no comments on the article. What is the status of the review? MWright96 (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If this one does go on, I don't mind taking over if it goes into the darkness. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * MWright96 I got really busy lately, but give me two to three days and I shall complete it. Thank you so much Lee Vilenski for offering help in completing the review, but I would try doing it in two to three days and if I would not be able to, I would let you know! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem! Glad to see you back. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Lee Vilenski Hey, I would not be able to complete this, so could you do this and Talk:Macdonald seamount/GA1? It would be a great help! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)