Talk:Assassination of Wade Perrin/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Luxtaythe2nd in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Luxtaythe2nd (talk · contribs) 11:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply


This is a point-by-point review of this article. Because the review requires me to do rather intense checking across the article, I will be doing this one by one. Helping and pointing out issues with the review is welcome.

  1. Well written:
    the prose is clear, concise, and understandable  
    spelling and grammar are correct  
    it complies with the manual of style guidelines for
    lead sections,  
    layout,  
    words to watch,  
    fiction,  
    and list incorporation  
    The article is well-written and avoids weasels whenever it can. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 11:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline  
    all inline 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  
    it contains no original research  
    it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism  
    Sources are all good, maybe could use more variety. No original research found, nearly every sentence is cited.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    it addresses the main aspects of the topic  
    it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail  
    Relatively short but swell. Compared to its size, it's interesting how many guidelines it checks out. Halfway through. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 12:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
  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:  
    media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content  
    media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.  

Review done! Phew. Generally, I'd say this article, while pushing limits in some areas, is a good article. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 14:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply