Template:GAList

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Template:GAList is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): [[Image:|15px]] b (MoS): [[Image:|15px]]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): [[Image:|15px]] b (citations to reliable sources): [[Image:|15px]] c (OR): [[Image:|15px]]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): [[Image:|15px]] b (focused): [[Image:|15px]]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: [[Image:|15px]]
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.: [[Image:|15px]]
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): [[Image:|15px]] b (appropriate use with suitable captions): [[Image:|15px]]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]
Template documentation

Usage

{{subst:GAList|1a=|1b=|2a=|2b=|2c=|3a=|3b=|4=|5=|6a=|6b=|7=}}

or

{{subst:GAList
|1a=|1b=
|2a=|2b=|2c=
|3a=|3b=
|4=
|5=
|6a=|6b=
|7=
}}

Available arguments are aye, nay, wtf, and ???; some synonyms are also available for these arguments; any other argument or no argument at all gives an undecided mark. Note that the template should be substituted, as the GA guidelines are reviewed from time to time and this template may be changed.

The template also allows comments to be added to the top of the review, and also to each numbered item, using additional parameters
 overcom, 1com, 2com, ... 7com.
See the example below for usage.

Example

{{subst:GAList
|overcom=This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
|1a=aye|1b=aye
|2a=nay|2b=???|2c=aye|2com=The sources are not sufficient to cover the controversial material in section 3
|3a=aye|3b=aye|4=wtf|4com=Is section 3 really neutral?
|5=aye|6a=|6b=aye|6com=I'm not convinced that the fair use rationale for the photograph in section 5 is valid
|7=nay|7com= Good luck improving the article}}

results in:

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The sources are not sufficient to cover the controversial material in section 3
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Is section 3 really neutral?
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I'm not convinced that the fair use rationale for the photograph in section 5 is valid
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Good luck improving the article

See also

Wikipedia content modification information:

  • This page was last modified on 4 July 2008, at 01:37.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Template:GAList".

The URL for this specific entry is:

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.