Talk:Janet Jackson (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

One fair use image used. File:JanetJacksonDebutCover.jpg with appropriate fair use rationale on image page. No issues here. — Cirt (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

Article edit history is stable going back a good amount of time.
Inspection of talk page shows no major conflicts.

No issues here, next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA table

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.	Writing quality is good, but could use some improvements here and there, I'd suggest WP:GOCE as a next step.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good lede section, good style presentation. I'd look through the article for some ways to shorten sentences, watch out for overusage of commas, and remove superfluous words like "also", "but", "although", "though", etc.
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.	Duly cited throughout to appropriate references.
	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'd strongly recommend adding "archiveurl" and "archivedate" parameters to all cites if possible to archived links from Internet Archive.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Reliant primarily on secondary sources throughout.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Reception and Promotion sects could stand with a bit more expansion going forwards.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes, good focus on topic, no problems here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I particularly like the way the lede intro sect presents the material very neutrally while also admitting the mixed reviews.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Passes here, per above.
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.	Passes here, per above.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Passes here, per above.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, nice job, I hope my above pointers and suggestions going forwards are helpful. — Cirt (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]