Talk:Cross-site leaks/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Equalwidth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


here
for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (
    lists
    )
    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to
    reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism
    ):
  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:
  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
    suitable captions
    )
    :

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
I disagree with this assessment, I do not believe that there is any original research and the images have been appropriately tagged with the correct licensing. Additionally, while not all of the aspects of the topic have been comprehensively covered, I believe they are sufficient to provide enough context to lay per into the topic. Similarly, while the prose might not be GA standard, I don't think they are far enough away to merit a quick fail. Due to this, I have renominated the article. -- Sohom (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]