Talk:Assassination of Wade Perrin/GA1

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

Reviewer: Luxtaythe2nd (talk · contribs) 11:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a point-by-point review of this article. Because the review requires me to do rather intense checking across the article, I will be doing this one by one. Helping and pointing out issues with the review is welcome.


 * 1) Well written:
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable
 * spelling and grammar are correct
 * it complies with the manual of style guidelines for
 * lead sections,
 * layout,
 * words to watch,
 * fiction,
 * and list incorporation
 * The article is well-written and avoids weasels whenever it can. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 11:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Verifiable with no original research:
 * it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
 * all inline 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
 * it contains no original research
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism
 * Sources are all good, maybe could use more variety. No original research found, nearly every sentence is cited.
 * 1) Broad in its coverage:
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
 * Relatively short but swell. Compared to its size, it's interesting how many guidelines it checks out. Halfway through. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 12:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
 * 2) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
 * 3) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
 * media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review done! Phew. Generally, I'd say this article, while pushing limits in some areas, is a good article. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 14:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)