Template:GAN review: Difference between revisions

By /

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content deleted Content added


 
Line 162: Line 162:

|{{{GA6b_comment|Not reviewed yet}}}

|{{{GA6b_comment|Not reviewed yet}}}

|}

|}

{{#if: {{{sourceCheck|}}}|===Source Check===

{{{sourceCheck}}}

}}

<noinclude>

<noinclude>

{{documentation

{{documentation

Latest revision as of 05:41, 23 November 2025

Criteria Sub criteria Result Comment
1. Well written a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct Not reviewed yet
b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation Not reviewed yet
2. Verifiable with no original research a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline Not reviewed yet
b. 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) Not reviewed yet
c. it contains no original research Not reviewed yet
d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism Not reviewed yet
3. Broad in its coverage a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic Not reviewed yet
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) Not reviewed yet
4. Neutral Not reviewed yet
5. Stable Not reviewed yet
6. Illustrated where appropriate a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content Not reviewed yet
b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions Not reviewed yet

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top