Talk:Somari/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jd22292 (talk · contribs) 18:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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:
 * The only concerning reference is the first reference, which cites "Someri Team", a primary source in this case.
 * 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:
 * The image of Green Hill Zone in the game, though its rationale is clear, needs a template with more information.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 2b can be addressed as per WP:LEADCITE, the lead and infobox are supposed to provide an accurate summary of the prose, and thus no citations are needed here. However, 6a is a red flag here. This needs to be addressed in a week or the review will fail. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for the review (and for pointing out the image; I had no idea it was up for deletion). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you also for responding quickly to the concerns. This article has passed and is now a Good Article. Congratulations! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * The image of Green Hill Zone in the game, though its rationale is clear, needs a template with more information.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 2b can be addressed as per WP:LEADCITE, the lead and infobox are supposed to provide an accurate summary of the prose, and thus no citations are needed here. However, 6a is a red flag here. This needs to be addressed in a week or the review will fail. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for the review (and for pointing out the image; I had no idea it was up for deletion). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you also for responding quickly to the concerns. This article has passed and is now a Good Article. Congratulations! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you also for responding quickly to the concerns. This article has passed and is now a Good Article. Congratulations! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)