Talk:2009 North Korean nuclear test/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Review by Nezzadar

Review opened. 21:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Completed 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC) - Result is APPROVED

Nezzadar's Review Worksheet

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

• While I do not write in the format "30 May, 2009" it is acceptable. This was the only gramatical objection I raised. Thus, the article meets expectations on this section. Nezzadar (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Organized nicely, perhaps too categorized, but well done none the less. Nezzadar (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

• See 2c.

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

• See 2c.

(c) it contains no original research.

• A very impressive list of sources. There is a place for every source and every source has its place. Kudos to the article writers for this one. I believe that this article exceeds expectations for the section 3 criteria. Nezzadar (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

• Could it use a bit more content? Yes. Can I think of that content off the top of my head? No. This might be a bit weak, but it works well enough that I am going to pass the article. I doubt this level of content would make the cut for an FA, but this isn't the nomination for an FA. The fact that so much of the article is dedicated to what other countries said seems to be more of a space filler, but it isn't unimportant, so as I said, it works well enough. Nezzadar (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• As I said in 3a, there is a bit much on the responses of other countries, but again, as I said, I'm letting it pass. Nezzadar (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

• I am going to note here that the article leans rather heavily against North Korea, but will not take action on this because most of the leaning is from international responses, and there is no doubt that the responses themselves leaned heavily against North Korea. This point must be adressed before the article becomes a Featured Article, but, in my opinion, is not critical enough to affect this nomination. Nezzadar (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Edit history does not reveal edit war in progress. Users involved in isolated chunks. Nezzadar (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

• USGS image on the page, verified to be free-use. Source checked out. Nezzadar (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Infobox graphic on the page, supposedly free-use, will not contest. Nezzadar (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• All images in infoboxes, relevant, captions unneeded. Nezzadar (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

APPROVED Nezzadar (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)