iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Rose_Ski_Tahoe/GA1
Talk:Mount Rose Ski Tahoe/GA1 - Wikipedia

Talk:Mount Rose Ski Tahoe/GA1

Latest comment: 1 month ago by IntentionallyDense in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Marincyclist (talk · contribs) 05:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 03:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply


I will be reviewing this soon! IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review, I will work on these recommendations! Marincyclist (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. I did close the nomination as a fail but so if you wish to nominate this it will have to be re-nominated. It may be easier to nominate something with more sources available as that makes it easier to find reliable sources. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The history section has a lot of one sentence paragraphs. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2b. 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). issues found. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2c. it contains no original research. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. issues found. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. issues found. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. issues found. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall assessment. Unfortunately due to the number of issues I have found thus far I am going to have to fail this review. There are several unsourced pieces of information, the tone isn't encyclopedic, and the majority of the article is sourced from the resort's own website. I hope this doesn't discourage you from making further improvements I just don't feel that this article meets GAC at this point in time. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply