Talk:Assassination of Wade Perrin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Luxtaythe2nd (talk · contribs) 11:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a point-by-point review of this article. Because the review requires me to do rather intense checking across the article, I will be doing this one by one. Helping and pointing out issues with the review is welcome.

1. Well written:

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable

   spelling and grammar are correct

   it complies with the manual of style guidelines for

   lead sections,

   layout,

   words to watch,

   fiction,

   and list incorporation

   The article is well-written and avoids weasels whenever it can. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 11:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

   all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged

   it contains no original research

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism

   Sources are all good, maybe could use more variety. No original research found, nearly every sentence is cited.

3. Broad in its coverage:

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

   Relatively short but swell. Compared to its size, it's interesting how many guidelines it checks out. Halfway through. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 12:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

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:

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

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

Review done! Phew. Generally, I'd say this article, while pushing limits in some areas, is a good article. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 14:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)