Talk:City of Blinding Lights/GA1

GA Review

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

Have had a read through, and while my initial thought was that the chart performance could use it's own section, I now think that it makes the article flow better to include it within Reception and Legacy like you have.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall a very well written and constructed article. References are precisely where they are needed, especially with the variety of quotes. Images have fair use rationales and alt text added. Article maintains neutral POV and uses quotes to show opinions of others. Happy to mark up as GA. Miyagawa (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)