From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 ( talk · contribs) 13:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I will review this article tomorrow. (Monday 30th) Aaron You Da One 11:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Calvin. Till 23:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Info box

  • You still list the normal chronology of the last and next album, regardless of what type of album it is.

Lead

  • No issues.

Background

  • No issues.

Release and content

  • No issues.

Critical reception

  • No issues.

Commercial performance

  • No issues.

Singles

  • No issues.

Promotion

  • No issues.

Tracklisting

  • No issues.

Charts and certifications

  • I c/e this section slightly.
  • Can you add a release history table?
    • Okay. Should I also list the credits? Till 11:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

References

Summary

On hold for 7 days. Aaron You Da One 11:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 ( talk · contribs) 13:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I will review this article tomorrow. (Monday 30th) Aaron You Da One 11:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Calvin. Till 23:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Info box

  • You still list the normal chronology of the last and next album, regardless of what type of album it is.

Lead

  • No issues.

Background

  • No issues.

Release and content

  • No issues.

Critical reception

  • No issues.

Commercial performance

  • No issues.

Singles

  • No issues.

Promotion

  • No issues.

Tracklisting

  • No issues.

Charts and certifications

  • I c/e this section slightly.
  • Can you add a release history table?
    • Okay. Should I also list the credits? Till 11:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

References

Summary

On hold for 7 days. Aaron You Da One 11:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook