Talk:Thought broadcasting/GA2
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Ganesha811 in topic GA Review
GA Review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi! This looks very interesting. I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like my first task will be to refamiliarize myself with WP:MEDRS and check that issues brought up in the first (very recent) review have been addressed. This may take me some time, but I'm going to be diving into it this weekend so please bear with me. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the picking up the article. For some reason I didn't get notified in my talk page; I'll try to address the issues brought up as soon as possible. The Blue Rider 18:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Great! The glitch was probably due to the username change, if it was between nomination and the start of the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the picking up the article. For some reason I didn't get notified in my talk page; I'll try to address the issues brought up as soon as possible. The Blue Rider 18:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to The Blue Rider and any others who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. 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). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
Issue addressed, pass. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- ^ "Riccardo Fusaroli". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.
- ^ "Arndis Simonsen". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.
- ^ "Andreas Roepstorff". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.