Talk:Derrick Barnes (author)/GA1

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

Reviewer: ReaderofthePack (talk · contribs) 21:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll take this on! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  21:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * No glaring errors or issues that I can see.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * References back up the claims, I see no OR, and Earwig's copyvio detector brought up no copyvio
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This has all of the information that can be added at this point in time.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No perceivable bias that I can see.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * There have been no edit wars since the page's creation and looks unlikely to be the focus of any at this point in time.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * No free images, unfortunately, but this is kind of par for the course for any modern person. This doesn't invalidate the article for GA, though.
 * 1) Overall: This still has room for growth, but at this point in time the page is comprehensive and has the needed sourcing to back up the claims.
 * Pass/Fail: