Talk:Dr. Octagonecologyst/GA1

GA Review

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

I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

1. File:Qbertconcert.jpg

   Free-use image from Wikimedia Commons.

2. File:Kool Keith.jpg

   Free-use image from Wikimedia Commons.

3. File:Dan the Automator.jpg

   Free-use image from Wikimedia Commons.

4. File:Dr. Octagonecologyst Cover.png

   Fair use image, with rationale on image page. Missing some info, could stand to use some reformatting on the image page utilizing {{Non-free media rationale}}. Cirt (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

   I expanded on the fair use rationale on the image page. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Image portion of review =  Done. Cirt (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Stability

No history of conflict on the talk page. However, there appears to have been some minor issues in the edit history [1], [2], [3] — could someone please elaborate/explain what this was all about? Is there any ongoing conflict about anything, issues addresed? Cirt (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• All of these issues have been addressed. The issues regarding chronology have been cleared up, the removal of "alternative hip hop" was made anonymously without explanation, and the Rolling Stone citation was removed because it didn't back up the information it was claimed to back up. (22:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Ah okay thanks. I will have more on this review page soon. Cirt (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Stability portion of review =  Done. Cirt (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 20, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Written in clear understandable writing style/format.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes. I especially like the Influence sectino.

4. Neutral point of view?: Indeed.

5. Article stability? See above.

6. Images?: See above.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Cirt (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)