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

Reviewer: Bruce Campbell ( talk) 22:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 12:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

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:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Summary: The article is well written, well referenced, and what little information the article contains is all up to GA standard. I looked through some other Gaga articles to assure everything within the article was consistent, and it more than matches "Speechless", and "Monster", two GAs. This is the 20th GA related Gaga article, and I can't think of an other artist who's wikipedia coverage is as excellent as Gaga's. Great work. Bruce Campbell ( talk) 22:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply