User:Evad37/sandbox/GA1

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

Reviewer: Example (talk · contribs) 01:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passed! Well done. A closing comment. Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * 2) The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * 3) It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 4) Some comment
 * 5) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * 6) It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * 7) Some comment
 * 8) 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:
 * 9) Some comment
 * 10) It contains no original research:
 * 11) Some comment
 * 12) Some comment
 * 13) It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 14) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * 15) It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * 16) Some comment
 * 17) It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 18) Is it neutral?
 * 19) It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 20) Is it stable?
 * 21) It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 22) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * 23) Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * 24) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 25) Overall:
 * 26) Pass or Fail:
 * 27) I will place this article on a one week hold because (some reason) Example (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Pass or Fail:
 * 2) I will place this article on a one week hold because (some reason) Example (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

X Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Y - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

pass Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

pass Evad37 &#91;talk] 05:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Passed - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Failed - Some reason Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

F Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm placing this review on hold for 7 days. Evad37 &#91;talk] 10:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Some question Evad37 &#91;talk] 10:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Reviewer: Evad37 (talk · contribs) 01:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passed! Well done. A closing comment. Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * 2) The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * 3) It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 4) Some comment
 * 5) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * 6) It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * 7) Some comment
 * 8) 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:
 * 9) Some comment
 * 10) It contains no original research:
 * 11) Some comment
 * 12) Some comment
 * 13) It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 14) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * 15) It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * 16) Some comment
 * 17) It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 18) Is it neutral?
 * 19) It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 20) Is it stable?
 * 21) It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 22) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * 23) Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * 24) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 25) Overall:
 * 26) Pass or Fail:
 * 27) I will place this article on a one week hold because (some reason) Example (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Pass or Fail:
 * 2) I will place this article on a one week hold because (some reason) Example (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

X Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Y - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

pass Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

pass Evad37 &#91;talk] 05:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Passed - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Failed - Some reason Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

F Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm placing this review on hold for 7 days. Evad37 &#91;talk] 10:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Some question Evad37 &#91;talk] 10:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)