User:Pdebee/GA criteria

GA criteria

[Courtesy of my friend Mimi. ]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

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)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(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

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

[Also, from Redrose64 at 11:51, 29 April 2016]:
Assessing something as C-class (or lower) is very subjective and entirely up to the individual, nobody really quibbles over the distinction between c/start or start/stub. For higher classes, there are guidelines and other conventions - for example, anything that is assessed B-class should (perhaps "must") meet all six criteria at WP:BCLASS; see also WP:WIAGA, WP:ACLASS and WP:WIAFA. For example, something that meets all the FA criteria except for referencing (FA criterion 1c) cannot be higher than C-class (since B-class criterion 1 also requires refs). [...] The general quality scale is described at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Quality scale. Most WikiProjects copy this scale as it stands, changing only the examples.