Talk:WLTX/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA review

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 19:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 10:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on my previous experience of the nominator and a cursory look at the article, I believe this is likely to be close to meeting the Good Article criteria already. I will start a full review shortly. simongraham (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of reasonable length, with 2,089 words of readable prose.
• The lead is appropriately long at 247 words.
• Authorship is 83.2% from the nominator with contributions from 84 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a C class article, although Rater predicts it to be B or higher.
• There is a duplicate link to Lancaster, South Carolina.
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text to the image for accessibility (thank you for doing this for the logo already).

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

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

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • I can see no obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Spot checks confirm.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 2% chance of copyright violation, meaning it is extremely unlikely. There was no substantive similarity between the article and the sample of documents.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article is rigorous and covers everything necessary.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article summaries the material well.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The logo has an appropriate PD tags and image has appropriate CC tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The logo and image are appropriate and interesting.

@Sammi Brie: Thank you for an interesting article. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.