Talk:Geth/GA1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Oreun (talk · contribs) 13:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: RadioactOlive (talk · contribs) 02:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for submitting the article; getting started on the review.radioactOlive(she/it)(talk) 02:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- The article seems to be written primarily from an in-universe perspective, which is in violation of WP:WAF#Real-world perspective. Specifically, the Attributes and Types section are entirely in universe, as is some of the lead. There is a lot of this, and it seems to be fairly long way from fixing this, and so I am going to quick fail this one. radioactOlive(she/it)(talk) 02:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- The article has pretty major real-world perspective issues that would need to be fixed before a renomination. The reception and analysis section also seems to go perhaps a bit deeper in depth then is necessary; there's no need to summarize every single analysis anyone has ever made of the species. radioactOlive(she/it)(talk) 02:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
