Talk:Jesse Puljujärvi/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: Poriman55 (talk · contribs) 11:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 19:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First thing to do - I'll check that issues brought up in the first GA review have been addressed. After that I'll dive into the table below. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Poriman55, can you confirm that you are around and available to make changes in response to comments? Thanks! Without that, it'll be tough to move forward. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here! I will make changes if needed and I'm not busy. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 19:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Have all the issues raised by the first GA review been addressed? —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. It is possible that i have missed something, but I will correct the mistakes if something comes up. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 07:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig picks up nothing egregious, hold for manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.