From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
| |||
| Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
* 60. {{nayc}} The source does not specify the comic book in which Shang-Chi joined the Avengers. | * 60. {{nayc}} The source does not specify the comic book in which Shang-Chi joined the Avengers. | ||
* 82. {{yeac}} | * 82. {{yeac}} | ||
* 91. {{nayc}} The source does not specify | * 91. {{nayc}} The source does not specify position in MI6. | ||
* 113. {{yeac}} | * 113. {{yeac}} | ||
* 114. {{yeac}} | * 114. {{yeac}} | ||
Latest revision as of 06:57, 19 October 2026
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Wrangler1981 (talk · contribs) 16:26, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: TheVoicelessWriter (talk · contribs) 06:26, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Hello. I will be reviewing this article.
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation, and table accessibility.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (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);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and have alt text.[6]
[4]
[5]
Notes
- ↑ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ↑ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
- ↑ This requirement is significantly weaker than the “comprehensiveness” required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ↑ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers’ suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ↑ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ↑ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
- The article contains a list of citations, but several citations need to be properly cited.
- Excessive citations tag need to be resolved.
- Broad in its coverage:
- I removed some information that was not relevant to the paragraph and the article.
- The article now does not stray out of topic.
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- I moved an image to a more appropriate position.
- I edited the caption to provide more context regarding the relevancy of the photo to the article.
- All images are now appropriately used with suitable captions.
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | A few copyediting regarding the grammar was done. There are no issues with the prose. | Pass |
| (b) (MoS) | No violations of MOS guidelines. Just needed a few improvements to better adhere to the guidelines. |  Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) |  On hold | |
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | All citations are from reliable sources. | Pass |
| (c) (original research) | Found issues during the source spot check that need to be resolved. | On hold |
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | No copyvio issues found | Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | All significant aspects relating to the character is included in the article. | Pass |
| (b) (focused) | Pass |
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The article is written in a neutral manner. | Pass |
| Comment | Result |
|---|---|
| No ongoing edit war | Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Free images are tagged and non-free images contain proper fair use rationales. | Pass |
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | Pass |
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| On hold | Article under review |
I know that User:Wrangler1981 is also working on other articles, but hopefully someone notified them that this GA review was already started. BOZ (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
- I’ve been checking it regularly. The review hasn’t been updated in a while. Wrangler1981 (talk) Wrangler1981 (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
- @TheVoicelessWriter do you have any additional input on what can be done to help this one pass GA? BOZ (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
- @TheVoicelessWriter saw that you have made some recent Wikipedia edits.. just a reminder that this review needs to continue ModlordD (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- If you are unable to finish the whole thing in one period thats perfectly fine. For my reviews I tend to split the reviewing process into parts, and then I’ll notify the nominator when I finish each part. ModlordD (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- @TheVoicelessWriter saw that you have made some recent Wikipedia edits.. just a reminder that this review needs to continue ModlordD (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- @TheVoicelessWriter do you have any additional input on what can be done to help this one pass GA? BOZ (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
@Wrangler1981 and BOZ: There are citations that need to be properly cited, such as citations with missing names of authors, no English translations of foreign titles, dates, work title, etc.:
[5][14]- [50]
- [56]
- [63]
- [69]
- [70]
- [72]
- [74]
- [75]
- [78]
- [82]
- [84]
- [91]
- [114]
- [115]
- [117]
- [122]
- [123]
- [124]
- [125]
- [126]
- [127]
- [128]
- [129]
- [130]
- [131]
- [139]
- [142]
- [147]
- [148]
- [149]
- [155]
- [156]
- [160]
- [164]
- [165]
- [175]
- [176]
- [177]
- [178]
- [179]
TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
@Wrangler1981 and BOZ: Issues found in the source spot check need to be resolved. Check the Source spot check section. Also, I added an excessive citations tag at the Reception section, and that needs to be resolved as well. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
