Talk:The Archives of the Planet/GA1

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

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 03:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Looks like a solid article. There are only a couple of small hitches that prevent me from passing it as a GA.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * The only oddity here is "…opérateur Roger Dumas captured the golden jubilee of Jagatjit Singh…". Throwing in a non-English term without explanation isn't ideal. The rest of the article sometimes uses "operator" as a synonym for "photographer", which I'm fine with, but the unexpected use of the French term makes it seem more significant than that. (If you replace it with the English word here, I recommend writing "camera operator", as it's the first time the word shows up and it helps to clarify what it's referring to.)
 * I changed it to "photographer". Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 15:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * The only fault I see is that three of the citations point to de Luca 2002, which isn't among the works cited. Is this just a typo for de Luca 2022?
 * Yes, good catch. Fixed. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 15:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Nothing here looks like OR. I can't check this thoroughly because I don't have access to most of these sources, but I was able to look at Amad and Bloom, and the text sticks to what they say.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig's tool shows nothing significant, and there's no close paraphrasing from the two sources I was able to check.
 * 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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Thank you for the review. I have fixed both issues. Let me know if you need anything else. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 15:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Pass. Congratulations! A. Parrot (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)