Talk:The Division Bell/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer:
I will be reviewing this article. At first glance, you need to correct the infobox as per {{infobox album}} by moving the critical reviews to the #Reception section. Also, you need to wikilink your sources and not just list them as "allmusic.com" or "billboard.com". --Legolas (talk2me) 07:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I just want to really quickly note that Ref #49 (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.chartFormatGroupName=Albums&model.vnuArtistId=61137&model.vnuAlbumId=768708) is a deadlink that needs to be fixed. –MuZemike 22:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Noting that reviewer hasn't edited in a while, and since there isn't much of a start a new reviewer needs to take over and do a review. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
GA review[edit]
This was not marked as "under review" at WP:GAN, so I'll take over. Pyrotec (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Pyrotec - I had wondered what was happening here... Parrot of Doom 13:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not a lot it seems. But should be finished today - depends if I find "errors" that I need fixing. Pyrotec (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I now know what Andy Mabbett does in the real world. Pyrotec (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ta very muchly :) Parrot of Doom 15:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I now know what Andy Mabbett does in the real world. Pyrotec (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not a lot it seems. But should be finished today - depends if I find "errors" that I need fixing. Pyrotec (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive, well-referenced article.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding it GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)