Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 13:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will have the review completed quickly as in the very first look, it looks perfect. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status – Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

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]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (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] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (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).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [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]

Review[edit]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion[edit]

  • Checklinks show a very slight requirement of cleanup like domain path clearance, which would be worth a while for the article's tidiness. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph of death section can be updated with few more inline cites for a better stability. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. I cannot find evidence that the bridge (which is still under construction as the whole project is running years behind) has been or will be named after him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life section needs a rewrite for paraphrasing. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Two block quotes inflate the rating. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...was an American physicist who was awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Physics for his co-detection of the neutrino with Clyde Cowan in the neutrino experiment. He may be the only scientist in... will be a better opening. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third paragraph of lead needs more wikilinks or piping. It looks almost bare. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked Hanford and Savannah sites. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

The article passed the GA review to gain a Good Article Status. The article is finely cited with a good coverage and meet all other GA criteria. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

  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. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frederick_Reines/GA1