Talk:IB Diploma Programme/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Very well written. No major issues.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The lead is a bit abrupt for an article of this length and detail. It should be expanded to better summarize the article. As a rule, each section should be mentioned in some way.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    No issues.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well cited.
    C. No original research:
    No issues.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Seems very comprehensive.
    B. Focused:
    No issues.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral point of view
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No issues.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    File:IB Diploma Programme hexagon.svg may be a problem. If it is a derivative of a copyrighted work, it is not free. How closely does this reproduction resemble the original?
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    More images are always nice, but in this case probably too much to ask for.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    A nicely written and well-researched article. With some expansion of the lead and resolution of the one image issue cited, this will easily meet the GA criteria. I will put the nomination on hold while these issues are addressed. Clearly meets the GA criteria. Well done!
    • Thanks for the review. I actually thought I'd deleted it from WP:GAN, and haven't done any work on it. This is the product of a number of editors; is it possible to add co-noms?
    • I've deleted the image. Will work on the lead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see. I saw it on the backlog and it seemed a shame to let such a nice article just sit there and fester. I am sure it is possible to add co-nominators. I think a note here might be sufficient. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]