Talk:Brat Pack/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I am sorry to say I am failing this article. Here is the review.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Needs some copyediting.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Wouldn't hurt to link New York magazine in the lead.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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):
- No references in the table or below, which is a pretty big part of the article. A few refs wouldn't hurt.
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- A little bit of non NPOV language.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- No photos.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- See above
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
Responses
[edit]- Needs some copyediting.
- Which copy specifically needs editing?
- Wouldn't hurt to link New York magazine in the lead.
- Will do.
- No references in the table or below, which is a pretty big part of the article. A few refs wouldn't hurt.
- Which specific facts need references?
- A little bit of non NPOV language.
- Which specific language is non-NPOV?
- No photos.
- Are photos required for a good article?
In my opinion, this review provided absolutely no help for this article whatsoever. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)