Talk:Despacito/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Fhsig13 (talk · contribs) 04:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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.	Excellent work in this area. No concerns here.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	A bit lengthily, but overall complies with the applicable MoS.
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.	Immense source list present, a very pleasant surprise.
	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).	I'm not going to check 400+ citations in depth, however the vast majority seemed to standard when I gave the list a once-over.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Again, 400+ citations. I have no concerns here.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I found nothing of the sort, thus it's a pass here too.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This articles covers multiple aspects of the the topic very very well, and in good depth. The article is a tad lengthily for the average reader, however there is visibly some necessity to that.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Again, it is a little on the long side for the average Joe, however, this is a particularly broad subject, and the authors have done a commendable job of giving a good overview of it's many facets. That said, fat-trimming may become necessary down the road.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No concerns here. Well written.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article's history page shows some reverting here and there, but nothing too serious or causing of any instability.
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.	No copyright status given on most images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No concerns here. Everything is as it should be.
	7. Overall assessment.	This articles meets 6 of the 7 criterion to be considered a Good Article, so I am happy give it a pass, however as stated above, some fat-trimming and work on the images may be required down the road. Overall though, excellent work.

Thank you for your review! I'm glad the article got a pass. Do you suggest some editing on long sections? Brankestein (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)