Talk:Get Your Gunn/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MagicatthemovieS: Sorry for the delay. I got halfway through reviewing this last night but, ya know, "*hit" happens. ;)

Anyway, there were a couple – mostly minor – issues with this one, but you probably seen me rectifying these myself. MOS says to put Personnel before Charts: [1]; there was one single inaccuracy on the article: [2]; a SCREAMING issue: [3]; and I added a full list of credits from the single artwork: [4]. Another thing that had me stumped for a minute was the In popular culture section. I thought those things were to be avoided, but it looks like things have changed quite a bit since the last time I paid attention, so no problem with this from me.

Other than these, this was an interesting and engaging article to review. No issues with source quality, all images are public domain (except the sound file, which has a FUR), the text is well-written, reliably sourced, and EarWig's copyvio tool showed no plagiarism (except for this song's MansonWiki page—although that was mostly due to repetition of certain song titles on both articles).

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:

No point in hanging around. Passing. Well done, again, Magic. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]