User:IvoShandor/sandbox4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Userboxen 2 Failed "good article" nomination 2.1 More specific comments 3 Good article review

[edit] Userboxen

This user thinks Steve Irwin was absolutely asking for it.	This user doesn't use petroleum.	MH This user didn't buy Ritz "cuz they're little edible plates".
This user wants to live a Beat lifestyle in Paris, France.	This user would rather be "exploding like spiders across the stars".	This user knows that "virtue comes to the virtuous by divine dispensation".
CB This user would like to tell humanity that it never had it from the beginning.

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed its good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 7, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

2. Factually accurate?:

3. Broad in coverage?:

4. Neutral point of view?:

5. Article stability?

6. Images?:

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. Thank you for your work so far. --A mcmurray 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by: IvoShandor

[edit] More specific comments

• Criteria #1: Well written.

• Prose:

• Structure

• MOS

• Jargon

• Criteria #2: Verifiable

• References

• Inline citations

• Reliable

• Original research

• Criteria #3: Thoroughness

• Major aspects

• Focus

• Criteria #4: NPOV

• Fair representation

• All significant views

• Criteria #5: Stable

• Criteria #6: Images

  Tags/captions

• Lack of

• Free user

[edit] Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Pass/Fail:

   a Well written:

   b Factually accurate:

   c Broad in coverage:

   d NPOV:

   e Stable:

   f Images:

   g Overall:

If the article failed the nomination, the comments below will help in addressing the problems. Once these tasks are accomplished, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. I sincerely thank you for your work so far.

If your article passed the nomination, congratulations on making Wikipedia all the better. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. If you didn't know there is a groovy user box, {{User Good Articles}}, for those users who have significantly contributed to a good article. The "essay" linked above is also how the criteria are applied to passing articles as well. Thanks again for your hard work.

Review by: IvoShandor