Talk:Topology/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Philroc (talk · contribs) 20:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I will need a second opinion on this article because in the references section, all the references are reliable sources expect one, which is a Internet post. I don't whether to let that through or not. Philroc (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, since I am the recruiter I am supposed to help him out. It's all right he decided for a second opinion, I wanted to say that the lead doesn't accurately summarize the article and nor is the vice versa true. So, GA nominator, do the changes. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 11:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Section 2b is actually a fail because there are still "citation needed" templates scattered across the article, and the situtaion talked about previously. Thus, I am changing this articles status from second opinion status to on hold status. Philroc (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed some. Address {{cn}} tags and correct the lead. Recruitee, you are requested to check out the GA review script and perform the checks accordingly. I noticed that you missed the first and most important part of MoS i.e. the lead. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 12:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please just get this over with? Philroc (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold requires you to wait atleast 7 days. You put this article on hold at 11:53 13 Jan. So, mate you gotta hold till 20th. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 15:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I review another article during that time? Philroc (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But only one more. As that is a GARC process. After that, I am gonna have to show you a very detailed GA review. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 11:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "After that, I am gonna have to show you a very detailed GA review"? Philroc (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By that, I refer to the GA review that I am gonna do, so that you can see the closest details. It's a compulsory GARC step. It was supposed to be done before but sadly you went and did this review. Still, you seem to be on the right track. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 14:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second article I reviewed passed. Philroc (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody improved the article within the 7 days that I held the article for. Thus, I am Failing this article. Philroc (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ankit Maity and Philroc, thanks for reviewing the article. Given the terse grading above and the extended exchange in which I gather something wasn't done correctly, I am bit unsure as to the next steps. My understanding is that for the article to regain GA status, the following would need to be addressed:

The lead needs to better summarize the content of the article
The citation needed tags need proper references

It seems like there might be other issues, but I cannot tell for sure. Do you have any further comments or helpful advice? Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one reference of this article is an Internet post. Philroc (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]