Talk:Grrrrrrrrrrr!!/GA1
Latest comment: 9 years ago by West Virginian in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 05:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger, as promised, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and suggestions that should first be addressed. Thank you for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Lede
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the painting, establishes the paintings necessary context, and explains why the painting is otherwise notable.
- The info box for the painting is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
- The image of the painting has adequate non-free media information and use rationale and the necessary Non-free 2D art and Non-free fair use templates.
- Because the lede should be a comprehensive summarization of all parts of the article, I suggest including a brief sentence or two from the "Related works" section. Perhaps just mention that Lichtenstein later created Arrrrrff!, an oil and graphite pencil on canvas painting depicting a dog from a subsequent issue of Our Fighting Forces.
- This is already addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- All three images in this article will need alt captions per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
Background
- The Our Fighting Forces image is acceptable for use here, as it has Non-free media information and use rationale attached and also has the Non-free comic license and Non-free fair use in license attached.
- Should the first sentence be reworded to say "the inspiration for this painting..." versus "the inspiration for this image"?
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum should be rendered and wiki-linked as such in its first mention in the prose outside the lede.
- already addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- In the final sentence of this section, I suggest rending it as "The work appeared on the cover of the November 1993 issue of ARTnews."
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
Details
- The image of Lichtenstein is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore suitable for inclusion here.
- This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
Related works
- This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.
- West Virginian thanks for taking time to review this article. I believe I have addressed your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger, thank you for your timely response to my review and for addressing my comments and suggestions. It is hereby a privilege for me to pass this article to Good Article status! Note: I am typing this response from my iPhone so I apologize for typographical or spelling errors. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)