The Eraser has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 5, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Eraser article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Eraser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 16:34, 4 May 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): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I see no reason to fail this very good article. Congratulations and thank you for your work! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wow - that's the fastest and most painless GA review yet. Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)