Talk:Playlist: The Very Best of Destiny's Child

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Playlist: The Very Best of Destiny's Child/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 16:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Destiny's Child - Playlist.jpg = one image used, fair use asserted, appropriate fair use rationale on image page, no issues here.

Next, on to stability review. — Cirt (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Stability review

1. Article edit history upon inspection shows no major conflict going back several months.
2. Talk page is same.

Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Expand lede sect

@My love is love:Perhaps you could please expand the lede sect bit more, maybe with a sentence or two more from the Background and release sect and a sentence with some specific reviews from the Reception sect? — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cirt: Can you check the newly added text? I Am... ***D.D. 21:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@My love is love:Perhaps you could add a couple more sentences and break the lede into two paragraphs? — Cirt (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cirt: Adding more details would be unnecessary in my opinion as the lead is meant to summarize the most important parts only. However, I can divide it into two paragraphs as it is now. I Am... ***D.D. 21:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, keep me posted. — Cirt (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done @Cirt: I Am... ***D.D. 21:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright will revisit soon thanks. — Cirt (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

GA passed

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Writing is of good quality throughout.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Had one minor issue with lead sect which was successfully addressed, above.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Duly cited throughout, however I'd encourage adding "archiveurl" and "archivedate" parameters to all cites to add durability to cites.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Good use of in-line citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Reliant primarily upon secondary sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers multiple major aspects of subject matter.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is indeed focused in scope of the topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No concerns here, written in a neutral tone throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stability review above was fine.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image review above checked out okay.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See image review above.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great job overall, nice GA. — Cirt (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)