Talk:Chennai Super Kings/GA4

GA Review

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

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 10:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Velthorian (talk · contribs) 08:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

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

This is a great piece of work and, it meets the good article criteria.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
As of now there aren't any issues but there are some links which are appropriate yet it shows they're spammy
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The language is neutral enough to be certified as.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
There hasn't been any recent edit war
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Pass.I wish you good luck with improving the article, even more!

Velthorian, it seems like you have "passed" the article, but you seem to think the article has issues (as not all criteria has been marked as pass)- you also have not passed it at the talk page, where it's actually supposed to be passed. Would you like any help to understand the instructions, or am I just inferring the wrong idea from this review? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are just getting the wrong idea. I aren't any issues. I mean the tool is showing tem spammy but they aren't. By the way thanks for alerting me that my edit on talk page didn't save well. Velthorion (Alarm!) 07:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was more talking about criteria 4, as it's marked as "don't know". Also, you have to atleast do a spot-check and mention which sources were checked (basically- just check some references to see if what is said in them agrees with the text that precedes the ref.)

Also, yeah, the tool sometimes does that, can be marked as pass, you don't need to mark it as neutral. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was an edit mistake Velthorion (Alarm!) 08:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]