User:IvoShandor/GAFT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): [[Image:|15px]] b (MoS): [[Image:|15px]]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): [[Image:|15px]] b (inline citations): [[Image:|15px]] c (OR): [[Image:|15px]]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): [[Image:|15px]] b (focused): [[Image:|15px]]

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   [[Image:|15px]]

5. It is stable.

   [[Image:|15px]]

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

   [[Image:|15px]]

7. Pass/Fail:

   a Well written: [[Image:|15px]]

   b Factually accurate: [[Image:|15px]]

   c Broad in coverage: [[Image:|15px]]

   d NPOV: [[Image:|15px]]

   e Stable: [[Image:|15px]]

   f Images: [[Image:|15px]]

   g Overall: [[Image:|15px]]

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

[edit] Usage

{{User:IvoShandor/GAFT|1a=|1b=|2a=|2b=|2c=|3a=|3b=|4=|5=|6=|7a=|7b=|7c=|7d=|7e=|7f=|7g=}}~~~~

Available arguments are aye, nay, wtf, and ???, none or other argument gives undecided mark.

{{User:IvoShandor/GAFT|1a=aye|1b=aye|2a=nay|2b=nay|2c=nay|3a=aye|3b=aye|4=wtf|5=aye|6=aye|7a=aye|7b=nay|7c=aye|7d=wtf|7e=aye|7f=aye|7g=nay}}

Results in:

[edit] Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   [[Image:|15px]]

5. It is stable.

   

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

   [[Image:|15px]]

7. Pass/Fail:

   a Well written: [[Image:|15px]]

   b Factually accurate: [[Image:|15px]]

   c Broad in coverage: [[Image:|15px]]

   d NPOV: [[Image:|15px]]

   e Stable: [[Image:|15px]]

   f Images: [[Image:|15px]]

   g Overall: [[Image:|15px]]

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