Talk:Nearest-neighbor chain algorithm/GA2

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

Reviewer: DrStrauss (talk · contribs) 15:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Passed! Dr Strauss   talk  15:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Passed! Dr Strauss   talk  15:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Passed! Dr Strauss   talk  15:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Reversing approval by novice reviewer
This was one of seven reviews posted within a 40 minute period. None of them were complete reviews; as the reviewer noted on his or her talk page, I didn't realise that GA was such a refined endeavour, rather just a sort of stamp.

The article still needs to be given a thorough review by a knowledgeable reviewer, so it has been put back into the reviewing pool. Any subsequent review will be done on a different review page. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)