Talk:Roanoke, Virginia/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking up this review. This is my first nomination, but I tried my best to follow the GA criteria as well as the US Cities guideline while I was updating the article. Eager to get your feedback.DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for nominating! The article looks in good shape, you've clearly made significant improvements. Just to give you a sense of my process, the initial review takes me a few days. Source review and comprehensiveness/detail usually take up the bulk of the time. I save prose review for last as prose often gets modified during prior parts of the review. I'm optimistic about this review based on my first read-through, but should have detailed comments for you in the next couple days! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811 - Thanks again for the time you're putting into this review. I'll be continuing work on formatting references today, but I wanted to let you know that after today I won't be online very much until Tuesday of next week, and that too will be a pretty busy day for me off-wiki. Feel free to continue leaving notes as your availability allows, and know that I will be eager to sink my teeth back into this after too much family time, ha. Thanks again, and I hope you have a good holiday season. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- That’s no issue at all, enjoy the holidays! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811 - Thanks again for the time you're putting into this review. I'll be continuing work on formatting references today, but I wanted to let you know that after today I won't be online very much until Tuesday of next week, and that too will be a pretty busy day for me off-wiki. Feel free to continue leaving notes as your availability allows, and know that I will be eager to sink my teeth back into this after too much family time, ha. Thanks again, and I hope you have a good holiday season. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for nominating! The article looks in good shape, you've clearly made significant improvements. Just to give you a sense of my process, the initial review takes me a few days. Source review and comprehensiveness/detail usually take up the bulk of the time. I save prose review for last as prose often gets modified during prior parts of the review. I'm optimistic about this review based on my first read-through, but should have detailed comments for you in the next couple days! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- This article now meets the GA standard! Congrats to DrOrinScrivello and all others who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 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. |
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.