Talk:Mugging/GA1
Add topicLatest comment: 11 months ago by Fwedthebwead in topic GA review
GA review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 20:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Fwedthebwead (talk · contribs) 18:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I'll review this! Fwedthebwead (talk)
Sorry the review took a little while (please keep in mind I'm a beginner reviewer so I'm sorry if there are any mistakes).
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:
- This is just a suggestion that isn't needed for the criteria, but in Origins, I would change describing Benjamin J. Davis Jr. from "a Communist politician" to "an African-American politician" so it makes more sense as to how he pertains to the point being discussed.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- 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:
- Congrats on getting GA for this article!
- Pass or Fail:
- @Fwedthebwead: Hi, thanks for taking this review! Did you complete a source spotcheck to ensure the article contains no original research or copyright violations? If you have not done this step, the review is considered incomplete, so it's best to state which sources you have checked. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Vigilantcosmicpenguin Ah sorry I didn't realize I had to list them. I did spot checks for "Motives for mugging include need for money, desire to increase social status, and the thrill of the act." (14th citation), "It is often associated with night," (21st citation), the statistic on "London's mugging rate increased 129% between 1968 and 1972." (43rd citation), and the thesis "A liberal is someone who has not been mugged" (71st citation). I'll make sure I remember to include what I spot checked in future reviews, thank you for telling me! Fwedthebwead (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)