Talk:Ultimate!/GA1

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Jaguar in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply


Will take this as requested. JAGUAR  18:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    "The 52-song two–compact disc compilation" - CD or compact-disc? The lead uses one whereas the body uses another
    "They enjoyed a string of Top 40 hits, including "For Your Love", "Shapes of Things", and "Over Under Sideways Down"" - this isn't mentioned in the body of the article
    One of the harvrefs have no citations linking to it
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    No original research found.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

I had a good read through this and couldn't find anything major enough to put this on hold, so I'll pass it outright. It is well written, comprehensive, and all of the sources check out so it meets the criteria. Good work on this! JAGUAR  10:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply