Talk:Skeptic's Toolbox/GA2

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


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

On sources: WP:SPS and WP:BIASED. On coverage, reads like a promotional pamphlet. Section on faculty, long list taking most of the article, and use of too many images at bottom unnecessarily would not pass GAN if nominated nowadays. A. C. Santacruz &#8258;  Talk  15:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * No comments from other editors, closing as fail. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)