GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 23:41, 19 June 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

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

Background

[edit]

Composition

[edit]

Critical reception

[edit]

Chart performance

[edit]

Track listing

[edit]

Credits and personnel

[edit]

Charts and certifications

[edit]

Release history

[edit]

References

[edit]

Summary

[edit]

Good work, not many issues to fix. A well written article. On hold for 7 days. Aaron You Da One 16:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the lengthy wait, passing. Aaron You Da One 21:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]