Talk:Candy (Foxy Brown song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: UrbanJE (talk · contribs) 00:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay Aoba27. Let's do it...

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:

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:

• Comment: This article is pretty consistent, well-written, readable and incorporates a good range of unbiased and factual information, it has less than 5% of copy-violation, and is also supported by a relevant image and sound sample. Good job Aoba47. I have some questions though, don't you think it should have a complete release date (including the day and month) in "Released" column on its infobox instead of just the year? Why it hasn't a full release date? Did you find this information? –UrbanJE (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review so far. I have added the information about the full release date with the relevant source cited. Thank you for bringing my attention to this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Okay! I'm confidently passing this. :D –UrbanJE (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)