Talk:Assassination of Wade Perrin/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Luxtaythe2nd (talk · contribs) 11:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a point-by-point review of this article. Because the review requires me to do rather intense checking across the article, I will be doing this one by one. Helping and pointing out issues with the review is welcome.
- Well written:
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable
- spelling and grammar are correct
- it complies with the manual of style guidelines for
- lead sections,
- layout,
- words to watch,
- fiction,
- and list incorporation
- The article is well-written and avoids weasels whenever it can. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 11:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- lead sections,
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable
- Verifiable with no original research:
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
- all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged
- it contains no original research
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism
- Sources are all good, maybe could use more variety. No original research found, nearly every sentence is cited.
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
- Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
- Relatively short but swell. Compared to its size, it's interesting how many guidelines it checks out. Halfway through. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 12:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- 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 war or content dispute
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
- media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
Review done! Phew. Generally, I'd say this article, while pushing limits in some areas, is a good article. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 14:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)