Talk:Teenage Whore/GA1

Latest comment: 10 years ago by SilkTork in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply


I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Tick box

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  


Comments on GA criteria

edit
Pass
Query
Fail

On hold

edit
  • Decent little article on an early song by Hole. Probably a little thin considering how much the song is mentioned in reliable sources, and there are a couple of statements that need sourcing. Other than that, no problems. On hold to allow those two issues to be looked into. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Nominator nudged. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not passed

edit

Concerns regarding citing not addressed, and no contact from nominator. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply