GA Review

[edit]

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.


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

Reviewer: Vaughan J. (talk · contribs) 09:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you all know that this is my first time reviewing for GA. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 09:49, 25 March 2023 (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, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Infobox and lead

[edit]

Background

[edit]

Composition and lyrics

[edit]

Critical reception

[edit]

Commercial performance

[edit]

Recording and personnel

[edit]

Charts

[edit]

Certifications

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Final comments and verdict

[edit]
The discussion above 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.