Talk:Sinclair Scientific
Add topicLatest comment: 12 years ago by Cirt in topic GA Review
 | Sinclair Scientific has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 22, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sinclair Scientific article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Sinclair Scientific/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]- One image, used in infobox, image hosted at Commons.
.
— Cirt (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Stability review
[edit]- Upon inspection of article edit history, going back over two months, no major problems.
- Looked at talk page history, going back to existence of page, no outstanding issues.
— Cirt (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Successful good article nomination
[edit]I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 22, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Writing quality is good for GA. I would recommend both WP:GOCE and WP:PR as optional next steps.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout, good standardization of reference formatting.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Written in neutral tone. Facts are given in matter of fact wording.
- 5. Article stability? See above, passes here.
- 6. Images?: See above, passes here.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)