Talk:Palo (religion)
Appearance
![]() | This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes. |
![]() | Palo (religion) has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 8, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Palo (religion)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk · contribs) 07:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Thanks for being willing to take this review on, Mychemicalromanceisrealemo. I hope that you enjoy reading the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia featured article candidates
- Wikipedia good articles
- Philosophy and religion good articles
- GA-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- GA-Class Cuba articles
- Mid-importance Cuba articles
- WikiProject Cuba articles
- GA-Class African diaspora articles
- Mid-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles