Talk:Sinsharishkun/GA1

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 08:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

 * 1) Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
 * 2) Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
 * 3) Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
 * 4) Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
 * 5) Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
 * 6) Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
 * 7) Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
 * 8) Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations – not applicable.
 * 9) All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
 * 10) All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
 * 11) Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
 * 12) No original research.
 * 13) No copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 14) Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
 * 15) Neutral.
 * 16) Stable.
 * 17) Illustrated, if possible.
 * 18) Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

As with Ashur-etil-ilani earlier, this is well written and reliably sourced. The coverage is in scope and doesn't over-speculate about another enigmatic subject. I just made a few tweaks as I was going through it. I'm pleased to promote it to GA. Two in one day. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As before, thank you very much for taking the time to look through this one, and for passing the review :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)