Talk:Doctor Death (magazine)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 09:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Mike, I'm happy to pick this one up for you: I've always enjoyed your articles when they hit the front page. I'll review this within a few hours. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! I think this is just a bit too short to take to FAC — I use 1,000 words as my cutoff for FAC, and this clocks in at 918 at the moment. Hard to find much to say about a magazine with only three issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 8 June 2020 (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. | See below. | |
Very little to say on this:
That's it from me - a nice article that covers everything I would expect from a short-lived magazine, and done very well too. |
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |
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. | One minor formatting point: you have "Westport CT" and "Westport, Connecticut": these should be made consistent
| |
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). | All sources are reliable, no information is unsupported | |
2c. it contains no original research. | All information supported by citations | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no concerns | |
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. | Only one image, correctly licenced | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Very pertinent image, suitably handled | |
7. Overall assessment. |
All good from me on your changes (or your rationale not to change the colons). I'm happy that this is certainly at GA level. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)