Talk:The Bella Twins/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by NiciVampireHeart in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    It looks like an anonymous editor just added "The girls have recently reunited." This needs to be referenced, with some basic how/when surrounding information about this event. (Also, the infobox "disbanded" date needs to be updated if this is true, as well as the end of the lead). Otherwise, the article is fine with referencing.
    I removed the whole "The girls reunited" thing, cause I haven't seen them back together [as a team]. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  5. 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):  
    The infobox image could use some sort of caption: i.e., when/where was it taken? And identifying the sisters would be good, but it's not exactly necessary because they are twins.
    The problem is that we can't tell them apart. But, I added a caption, hopefully it works. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Fine, that looks great now. Distinguishing the twins is optional. JamieS93 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    You linked and explained the wrestling jargon and abbreviations, just something I noticed, which is a plus for certain topics which can be a tad confusing to outsiders - even myself, who knows nothing about wrestling, understood it! ;) Overall, this is a nice work, and close to being a good article. It does have several issues that are non-substantial, so I'm putting it on hold. Best, JamieS93 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Well, we have to be specific when it comes to wrestling terms to those who are unfamiliar with the subject. :) I believe I've addressed all your concerns. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, and thanks for promptly addressing the issues. There's still those couple of minor points that I'd like to get fixed (which might involve Nici's view), but the article is certainly close. JamieS93 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, I think I've finished the remaining problems. ♥NiciVampireHeart12:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I took a look at all the changes, and everything looks good now. Congratulations, I'm passing this as a GA! You guys did good work. Best, JamieS93 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much. Really appreciated! ♥NiciVampireHeart16:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply