Talk:Extreme Rising/GA1

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: DepressedPer (talk · contribs) 13:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
~~Try putting both the second and third sentences, and the fourth and fifth sentences together with each other.~~
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

An article like this should've been a GA a week or two after it was nominated. This was a short and sweet read-through that I got through pretty easily. Aside from what I mentioned above, this article captures the promotion's brief history very well, and didn't leave anything that was needed. I'm going to put this review on hold so that you can edit in what needs to make this a full-fledged GA. DepressedPer (talk · contribs) 15:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this endeavor. I have a question regarding the changes you want made. Are the sentences in question: "To create interest for the inaugural..., Douglas stood up during..." and "The inaugural event..., The fans in attendance..."? By putting them together, you mean merging them into one sentence each?LM2000 (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I meant 'paragraphs'. Merge the third one that starts with "Douglas released..." with the second one ending with "medical reasons." And merge the fifth one that starts with "After a hiatus..." with the fourth one ending with "due to poor sales."DepressedPer (talk · contribs) 20:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I thought that's what you meant. Done.LM2000 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's looking better. Consider this article passed as a GA. DepressedPer (talk · contribs) 06:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.