Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a242dffbb82d376a

Jump to content

Talk:2004/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 4 hours ago by Thebiguglyalien in topic GA review

GA review

[edit]

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

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 15:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Sddarealone (talk · contribs) 10:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply


An year after I was born, I remember almost nothing about 2004 except that the hip-hop culture was trending and that Facebook was launched. There's an interesting film on the rise of this platform, The Social Network which was released six years later after Fb's launch. Also, articles on years are pretty special as they summarize everything at once so hopefully the broad coverage (criteria 3) is not going to have any issues.

The review is going to come gradually as the prose length, MOS, WTW, and few other common style issues need to be checked.

Ok, I don't want to quick fail this but you need to check for WP:COPYVIO issues (earwig results), and stability as the revision history has a series of vandal edits made by unregistered editors (although now reverted). If any of such edits made are left then unfortunately it doesn't meet the criteria to proceed with WP:GACR6. Good luck.

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Sddarealone (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sddarealone, the site on Earwig copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. And vandalism isn't part of the stability criterion (make sure to read the footnotes that come with the criteria). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply