Talk:Wash Us in the Blood/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Ultimate Boss (talk · contribs) 06:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well written:
1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research:
1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

1. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
2. it contains no original research; and
3. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage:
1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

How is "Based on the platform's community guidelines, the video was age-restricted" important to the article?

It was reported on West's official Vevo channel, doesn't this qualify notability? --K. Peake 06:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Overall