Talk:Somari/GA1

GA Review

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

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:

2. 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—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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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 {{Non-free image rationale}} template with more information.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. 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)

• @Jd22292: 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)