Talk:Pure Heroine/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TomasTomasTomas (talk · contribs) 01:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well written:
- the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
- it complies with the list incorporation.
- the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
- Verifiable with no original research:
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- all 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;
- it contains no original research; and
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
- Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit waror content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as audio:
- media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- media are suitable captions.
- media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- Overall
- 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.