Misplaced Pages

Talk:Causeway Bay Books disappearances/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Causeway Bay Books disappearances Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:59, 27 October 2016 editShearonink (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,435 edits cmt.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:41, 27 October 2016 edit undoShearonink (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,435 edits done - passed 
Line 20: Line 20:
#:A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with ]: {{GAList/check|yes}} #:A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with ]: {{GAList/check|yes}}
#:: #::
#:B. All ] are from ], including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or ], and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the ]: {{GAList/check|on hold}} #:B. All ] are from ], including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or ], and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the ]: {{GAList/check|pass}}
#:: I did a spot-check of several of the Chinese-lkanguage references using Google Translate - so far as I can tell the references are all in order with the exception of Reference #51 - it is basically a bare URL. Please fill it out more completely. #:: I did a spot-check of several of the Chinese-lkanguage references using Google Translate - so far as I can tell the references are all in order with the exception of Reference #51 - it is basically a bare URL. Please fill it out more completely.
:::: Thanks for fixing that ref. ] (]) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
#:C. It contains ]: {{GAList/check|yes}} #:C. It contains ]: {{GAList/check|yes}}
#:: #::
Line 43: Line 44:
#:: #::
#'''Overall''': #'''Overall''':
#:Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|on hold}} #:Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|pass}}
#:: pending my checking of the references. ] (]) 21:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC) #:: pending my checking of the references. ] (]) 21:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
#:: So far as I can tell all the Chinese-language references check out. Review is now On hold pending Reference #51 being filled out more completely. ] (]) 06:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC) #:: So far as I can tell all the Chinese-language references check out. Review is now On hold pending Reference #51 being filled out more completely. ] (]) 06:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
#:::Refence #51 has been filled-out, congratulations to all the editors - it's a ''']'''. ] (]) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:41, 27 October 2016

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I am starting a Good article review for Causeway Bay Books disappearances. Shearonink (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

seems well-written, at first impression I can find no obvious issues.

  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:
    I did a spot-check of several of the Chinese-lkanguage references using Google Translate - so far as I can tell the references are all in order with the exception of Reference #51 - it is basically a bare URL. Please fill it out more completely.
Thanks for fixing that ref. Shearonink (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  2. 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):
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    the article's authors are to be commended for keeping the tone dispassionate
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  5. 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:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    pending my checking of the references. Shearonink (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    So far as I can tell all the Chinese-language references check out. Review is now On hold pending Reference #51 being filled out more completely. Shearonink (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    Refence #51 has been filled-out, congratulations to all the editors - it's a Good article. Shearonink (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Causeway Bay Books disappearances/GA1: Difference between revisions Add topic