Jump to content

Talk:Backlash (2003)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the Background section, this sentence ---> "The Rock would finally accepted" and " needs to be fixed. Same section, this ---> "On the final episode of Raw before Backlash", this ---> "On the final episode of SmackDown! before Backlash", this ---> "The feud intensified on the final episode of Raw before Backlash", and this ---> "The feud escalated the following week on the final episode of SmackDown! before Backlash", seem a bit off, it should probably say something during the week of Backlash or something, but not the final episode. In the Event, I know who "Long" is, but how 'bout the person that reads this article. In the Aftermath, "After Backlash" is mentioned twice, it would be best if it were mentioned once.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the lead, it would be best if "Chris Jericho" were linked once, per here. In the Background section, "March 31, 2003" and "April 17, 2003" are linked twice. In the Aftermath, "April 28, 2003" is linked twice.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it 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 (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- iMatthew T.C. 23:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Matt for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]