Talk:Bleeding Through/GA2

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Two dead links and two redirects found using this tool. Ref #7 does not support the statement; other live references are OK.

   • ibanez.co.jp "support the statement."--Cannibaloki 02:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

   • Yeah, at the time of the review, ref #7 was [1] which doesn't mention Bleeding Through. Anyway as itn isn't there now, thats' OK. I moved {http://www.a-pathetic.net/zine/archives/176#more-176} and {http://www.a-pathetic.net/zine/archives/406} into ELs. It is not good to have a mixture of numbered ciatations and general refernces in teh same space. they could go into A new Further erading section if you prefer. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Ref #1 [2] does not qualify as RS; ref #6 [3] is a fan contributed site, not RS; Appear fairly reliable. It would be good to find some more mainstream sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

   • All were properly removed.--Cannibaloki 02:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   • Hmm... I removed one.--Cannibaloki 02:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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:

   • Please check out the references as per above, on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

   OK, I am happy to confirm this article's GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)