Talk:Distributed-element circuit/GA1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:09, 26 July 2018

Revision as of 14:19, 26 July 2018

Line 13:

| colspan="3" | '''1.''' {{GAC|1}}: <!-- Well written. Add comments to the ends of the lines below. -->

<!-- The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. -->

{{GATable/item|1a|?y|It is a model of clarity and conciseness.

}}

<!-- it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. -->

{{GATable/item|1b|y|The structure is straightforward, canonical, and suits the subject admirably.

{{GATable/item|1b|?|

}}

|- style="vertical-align:top;"

| colspan="3" | '''2.''' {{GAC|2}}: <!-- Verifiable. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). -->

<!-- It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout.-->

{{GATable/item|2a|?y|It is fully and properly cited.

}}

<!-- All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. -->

{{GATable/item|2b|y|The sources are excellent. Personally I'd favour using the Harvard mechanism to link the References to the Bibliography but this is not a GA requirement.

{{GATable/item|2b|?|

}}

<!-- It contains no original research. -->

{{GATable/item|2c|?y|There is no sign of original research or editorialising in the article.

}}

<!-- It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. -->

{{GATable/item|2d|?y|There is no sign of any copyright issue. Earwig is entirely happy.

}}

|- style="vertical-align:top;"

| colspan="3" | '''3.''' {{GAC|3}}: <!-- Broad. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). -->

<!-- Coverage. It addresses the [[Wikipedia:Out of scope|main aspects of the topic]]. -->

{{GATable/item|3a|y|It seems to a lay editor to be admirably comprehensive. The topics fit together logically and there are no discernible loose ends.

{{GATable/item|3a|?|

}}

<!-- Focus. It stays [[Wikipedia:Article size|focused on the topic]] without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). -->

{{GATable/item|3b|?y|There is no wandering off topic. The level of detail is even throughout.

}}

<!-- Neutral. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). -->

{{GATable/item|4|?y|There is no sign of the adoption of a point of view.

}}

<!-- Stable. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). -->

{{GATable/item|5|?y|The article is stable. There has been no editing since mid-May.

}}

|- style="vertical-align:top;"

| colspan="3" | '''6.''' {{GAC|6}}: <!-- Images. Add comments to the ends of the lines below (after |). -->

<!-- Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. -->

{{GATable/item|6a|?y|All the images are from Commons and appear to be correctly tagged there.

}}

<!-- Images are [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature|relevant]] to the topic, and have [[Wikipedia:CAP|suitable captions]]. -->

{{GATable/item|6b|y|The images contribute substantially to the article, often contributing insight as well as variety.

{{GATable/item|6b|?|

}}

<!-- Overall. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). -->

{{GATable/item|7|y|I am more than satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria. The article is a model of encyclopedic technical writing and I wish it well if it is intended for FAC. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 14:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

{{GATable/item|7|<!-- Replace this comment with your final assessment: "y" or "n" -->|

}}

|}