Jump to content

Talk:Equality (mathematics)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Farkle Griffen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Remsense (talk · contribs) 17:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've really enjoyed seeing your work on this article develop! Claiming, after ensuring my little touch ups before don't constitute my being a major contributor.

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
  3. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Comment Result
    Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Neutral Undetermined The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion

[edit]
  • Firstly, I am a comparatively hands-on reviewer, and will go ahead and change stuff as well as asking questions and pointing out issues. I know nominators can potentially be stressed out by that if they don't feel entirely on the same page, so please don't hesitate to revert or question anything I do! I tend to view GAN as a good time for two invested editors to really deliberate on higher-level improvements, even if not strictly necessitated by the GA criteria. Remsense ‥  18:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking this up! I'm not picky about small details, so I probably won't care too much about any changes. I would ask for you to be clear about why you make the changes you do because I'd like to be capable of doing reviews in the future, but your edit summaries are usually pretty thorough.
    I'm going to be slightly busy until Wednesday, so if there's any large issues, I may not be able to fix them them until after that, but I should still be able to do everything within the seven days (per WP:GAN/I#HOLD.) Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]