Talk:The Miz/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):   I was a little bewildered by some of the jargon, but it was all wikilinked, so ultimately made sense. I was concerned by the possibility of weasel wording, but in context the description of his career is somewhat akin to a plot line as this is entertainment. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   The article is well referenced, as far as I can ascertain the sources are reliable, this is a bit af a grey area as pro wrestling is not heavily covered by mainstream media. I saw no signs of WP:OR Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):   The article appears to be broad in its coverage and remains focussed on its subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:   The article appears to be free from bias. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:   I see no recent evidence of edit wars. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):   All images are corrcet licensed in a manner compatible with Wikimedia's licensing policy. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:   I am happy to pass this article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply