Talk:The Perks of Being a Wallflower/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

This article is excellently written. I was unable to find one single sentence or grammar error. Impressive. :)

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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

c. It contains no original research

This article uses only online sources all of which seems reliable and contain the necessary reference information. Some of the sources are well-known such as The Yew York Times, New York Magazine, Complex Magazine, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, Variety Magazine and so on.

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article is broad in its coverage, focuses on main topics and does not go into unnecessary detail.

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is neutral, does not included personal opinion or statements and covers both negative and positive response.

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article has a history of content disputes all of which are now outdated with the latest dispute occurring in 2009. And the content of the article does not change significantly from day to day (major edits done in the preparation of the GA-nomination will be ignored).

• Illustrated

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article is illustrated with two images both of which contain the required text information. A third image from the film production or main characters in the "Film adaptation" section would be nice, but this is just a suggestion.

• Pass, fail or hold?

The article surely meets the GA-requirements and I'm therefore going to pass it. Good job people. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)