Talk:Ultimate!

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Ultimate!/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this as requested. JAGUAR  18:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (

   lists

   ):

   "The 52-song two–compact disc compilation" - CD or compact-disc? The lead uses one whereas the body uses another

   "They enjoyed a string of Top 40 hits, including "For Your Love", "Shapes of Things", and "Over Under Sideways Down"" - this isn't mentioned in the body of the article

   One of the harvrefs have no citations linking to it

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

   No original research found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I had a good read through this and couldn't find anything major enough to put this on hold, so I'll pass it outright. It is well written, comprehensive, and all of the sources check out so it meets the criteria. Good work on this! JAGUAR  10:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]