Talk:17776/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 12:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm doing this review. So far so good. As it's getting a bit late where I live, I may continue this review tomorrow or over the next few days, but right now, my main suggestion is that the lede is rather inadequate: it only talks about its premise and release, and does not mention anything about its production, themes, or reception. At the very least, an additional paragraph in the lede explaining so may be needed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at incorporating important points from all sections! —Collin^{t c} 04:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the expansion Collin. There doesn't seem to be that many issues I can see right now, so within a few hours I'll give this a full review; passing should be a formality by now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much, Narutolovehinata5! —Collin^{t c} 02:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for the delay, I have been busy with real-life activities and other Wikipedia related work. I'll give the full review tomorrow, but this is for now a tentative pass. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwigs gave a score of 49% with Goodreads, but I think it was Goodreads that copied from Wikipedia rather than vice-versa. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   No outstanding problems were seen. Good job! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)