Talk:Hard–easy effect/GA1

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

Reviewer: Codyorb (talk · contribs) 00:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Commencing GA review for Hard-easy effect. Codyorb (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Codyorb (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * No problem with prose or readability. However, I would consider merging alternative names with the lead section; it's a bit too short to have its own section. I've also made a few copyedits.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Well cited; no problems found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Comprehensive, yet still very informative.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * No pictures, although they aren't necessary.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * It passes! Meets all of the criteria well.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * It passes! Meets all of the criteria well.