Talk:What Did You Eat Yesterday?/GA1

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll review this as it's the oldest one in the list. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) GACR#1a. Well written: the prose is clear, concise and understandable.
 * 2) GACR#1a. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
 * 3) GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
 * 4) GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
 * 5) GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
 * 6) GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction.
 * 7) GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
 * 8) GACR#2a. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
 * 9) GACR#2b. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
 * 10) GACR#2b. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
 * 11) GACR#2b. All quotations are cited and their usage complies with MOS guidelines.
 * 12) GACR#2c. No original research.
 * 13) GACR#2d. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 14) GACR#3. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
 * 15) GACR#4. Neutral (NPOV).
 * 16) GACR#5. Stable.
 * 17) GACR#6a. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.
 * 18) GACR#6b. Images are relevant to the topic with appropriate captions.

Hello,, I'll use the criteria checklist above to mark progress. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I've checked the image which is fine as fair use and the article is certainly stable so that disposes of GACR#5 & GACR#6. Will be doing a full read next. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've read the article a couple of times and it's good to go so I'm promoting it to GA. I just resorted the categories for ease of use. It's only a short article but there's a lot of information in there and all within scope, so it passes WP:GACR#3 without any difficulty. Sources seem to be satisfactory and it's well written. So, it's a good article. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)