Talk:Giveamanakick/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Candlewicke in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: maclean (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Conclusion
This a very good article. I only have two items. First, I think the "noise rock" quote in the lead belongs in the "Styles" section, or at least a mentioning of "noise rock" or "punk rock" in that section. Second, did they give no reason for their split? --maclean (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. (1) Done. (2) I have no idea or at least not one that has a reliable source. --candle•wicke 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)