Talk:Reid Detmers

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Reid Detmers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cherrell410 (talk · contribs) 16:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    Citation 22 is missing an author although it is applicable
    Fixed. Sewageboy (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit wars, only 2 reverts, one by an ip vandal, the other was someone who undid their own edit
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    I have just a few suggestions that I am going to list here to improve the article

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Cherrell410, I've made the requested changes. Let me know if there are any other concerns. Sewageboy (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]