Talk:Adderall/Retracted GA1 review

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: PapaJeckloy (talk · contribs) 13:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Will review this one later. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

1. Well-written: a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, 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. ✅

2.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.it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial ✅ c.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 ✅ d. it contains no original research.✅

3. Broad in its coverage ✅ (No doubts)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

5. Stable: it does not change significantly ✅

6. Illustrated: Of course. ✅

This article meets the criteria for GA, after a lot of time spent for proofreading and sourcechecking. So i gladly says that it is PASSED. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)