The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: AstonishingTunesAdmirer ( talk · contribs) 04:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
And we're back. And when we come back from being back, we have a review, featuring myself,
AstonishingTunesAdmirer
連絡
04:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
As the references here look equally important to me, I let fate decide which ones are worth checking.
The article is well-written (minus a few typos), prose is clear and concise. Apart from a single use of an idiom mentioned above, the article follows all the MoS guidelines listed in GA criteria. It contains no original research, everything is cited using reliable sources (with the nominator even providing clippings for newspapers, which is not required). It contains no copyvio, quotes are properly attributed. The article is broad and neutral. Images used are properly licensed and contain suitable captions where appropriate. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 17:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: AstonishingTunesAdmirer ( talk · contribs) 04:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
And we're back. And when we come back from being back, we have a review, featuring myself,
AstonishingTunesAdmirer
連絡
04:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
As the references here look equally important to me, I let fate decide which ones are worth checking.
The article is well-written (minus a few typos), prose is clear and concise. Apart from a single use of an idiom mentioned above, the article follows all the MoS guidelines listed in GA criteria. It contains no original research, everything is cited using reliable sources (with the nominator even providing clippings for newspapers, which is not required). It contains no copyvio, quotes are properly attributed. The article is broad and neutral. Images used are properly licensed and contain suitable captions where appropriate. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 17:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)