Talk:Amy Rose/GA1

GA Review

[[{{subst:Amy Rose}}|Article]] ([[Special:Edit/{{subst:Amy Rose}}|edit]] | [{{fullurl:{{subst:Amy Rose}}|veaction=edit}} visual edit] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{subst:Amy Rose}}|history]]) · [[Talk:{{subst:Amy Rose}}|Article talk]] ([[Special:Edit/Talk:{{subst:Amy Rose}}|edit]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Talk:{{subst:Amy Rose}}|history]]) · [{{fullurl:{{subst:Amy Rose}}|action=watch}} Watch]

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)(==...==) below to break up the review. Use level 3 (===...===), level 4 and so on.-->

1. Well-written: The prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and 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: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage? It addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without 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 images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Comments. The article is well written and pretty acceptable for a GA. I will Quickly Pass it but I would like to comment on possible issues in future FAR.

• The In video games section contains too many details. Some game appearances can be trimmed a bit more.
• The infobox has features which might qualify as Fancruft. (Likes, dislikes)
• Amy's Sonic CD image might need a more detailed explanation that justifies its usage such as who designed her.

Congratulations.