Talk:Hard–easy effect/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Codyorb (talk · contribs) 00:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commencing GA review for Hard-easy effect. Codyorb (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
No problem with prose or readability. However, I would consider merging alternative names with the lead section; it's a bit too short to have its own section. I've also made a few copyedits.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Well cited; no problems found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Comprehensive, yet still very informative.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No pictures, although they aren't necessary.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
It passes! Meets all of the criteria well.

Codyorb (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]