Talk:Pure Heroine/GA1

Latest comment: 6 years ago by TomasTomasTomas in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Reviewer: TomasTomasTomas (talk · contribs) 01:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply


  1. Well written:
    1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;  
    2. 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:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;  
    2. all in-line 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, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;  
    3. it contains no original research; and  
    4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.  
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and 
    2. 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:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and 
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. 
  7. Overall
    1.   - I personally say this is well written and worthy for GA status. While the only criteria that I could be convinced otherwise on is perhaps 1a, it seems to have a few errors which I recently cleaned up.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.