Talk:Anthrocon/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 13:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) 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:
 * no concern
 * 1) 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:
 * no concern
 * 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * There are 20 sources given, only 3 are not the convention's website. Of those three, Ranting-Gryphon is also a primary source. The other two are used to source ticket prices (Buzzfeed) and the income the convention brought to Pittsburg in 2009. Many additional third-party sources are needed to make this GA quality.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * no concerns
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no concerns
 * 1) 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:
 * no concerns
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Not all of the images are equally relevant. The last one is a picture of two guests from one year. Other guests aren't pictured at all, so this seems like undue weight. I'm not sure the other four enhance the article. The directors in the 2007 picture are not identified. If you feel this many image are needed, they should be formatted into a gallery, like the one at New York Comic Con. The infobox caption lacks context - I shouldn't have to search the article to understand what ballgame its talking about. Is that logo specific to the 2017 con?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 2B is a serious red flag. If that issue is addressed within seven days, I will complete the review. Otherwise, this will be a fail. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No improvement. Failing review. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not all of the images are equally relevant. The last one is a picture of two guests from one year. Other guests aren't pictured at all, so this seems like undue weight. I'm not sure the other four enhance the article. The directors in the 2007 picture are not identified. If you feel this many image are needed, they should be formatted into a gallery, like the one at New York Comic Con. The infobox caption lacks context - I shouldn't have to search the article to understand what ballgame its talking about. Is that logo specific to the 2017 con?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 2B is a serious red flag. If that issue is addressed within seven days, I will complete the review. Otherwise, this will be a fail. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No improvement. Failing review. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)