Talk:Carl Diggler/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mackensen (talk · contribs) 19:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	The article does a good job separating factual assertions from opinions, and in the latter case indicating whose they are.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The use of blockquotes trips up Earwig but everything seems in order.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hello Brandt Luke Zorn (talk · contribs), thanks for your work on this article. I hope to have comments for you shortly. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few copyedits and switched around one misplaced reference, but otherwise I find no fault with this article. I'm surprised that I never heard of Diggler during the campaign. Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]