Talk:Best of Both Worlds Tour/GA1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by SCB '92 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: SCB '92 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Don't care for Miley Cyrus, so I'm the perfect person to review this.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- In the Background section: "an fourteen date-extension of the tour was announced": change "an" to "a" and change "fourteen date-extension" to "fourteen-date extension"; "the American band Everlife was announced to as the final opening act." reomve "to".
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- ref 2 needs a publishing date (July 28, 2006); ref 14 needs a retrievel date; ref 63 needs the name of the review publisher (Stephen Thomas Erlewine)
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- No problems here.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Looks fine.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No edit wars whatsoever.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- most images are public domain
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- I think there are too many images in this article (a total of 9), and most of them are Miley Cyrus performing (highlights of the tour) and doesn't relate to the section it is in: e.g. what is this image File:Miley Cyrus Concert.jpg to do with the tickets controversy?; what is this image File:Miley Cyrus Concert 2.jpg to do with the critical reception? if the caption read something about the reception it received, then it'd be fine, but it doesn't; and is this image File:Miley cyrus - houston rodeo.jpg necessary for the commercial performance?; I know the photos of her performing changes from Hannah Montana to Miley Cyrus, but 1 image of each is enough; the amount of images should be cut down to 6, so at least 3 images to be removed to reduce screen loading time; but since there are articles that have a lot of images in one article, I guess it's okay.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I guess there's no problem of preventing this from being a good article, just minor problems. So I'm passing this article. Well done!
- Pass or Fail:
