Talk:Grrrrrrrrrrr!!/GA1

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 05:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian   (talk)  05:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


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

, as promised, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and suggestions that should first be addressed. Thank you for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian   (talk)  05:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the painting, establishes the paintings necessary context, and explains why the painting is otherwise notable.
 * The info box for the painting is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
 * The image of the painting has adequate non-free media information and use rationale and the necessary Non-free 2D art and Non-free fair use templates.
 * Because the lede should be a comprehensive summarization of all parts of the article, I suggest including a brief sentence or two from the "Related works" section. Perhaps just mention that Lichtenstein later created Arrrrrff!, an oil and graphite pencil on canvas painting depicting a dog from a subsequent issue of Our Fighting Forces.
 * This is already addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All three images in this article will need alt captions per Alternative text for images.
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Background
 * The Our Fighting Forces image is acceptable for use here, as it has Non-free media information and use rationale attached and also has the Non-free comic license and Non-free fair use in license attached.
 * Should the first sentence be reworded to say "the inspiration for this painting..." versus "the inspiration for this image"?
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum should be rendered and wiki-linked as such in its first mention in the prose outside the lede.
 * already addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the final sentence of this section, I suggest rending it as "The work appeared on the cover of the November 1993 issue of ARTnews."
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Details
 * The image of Lichtenstein is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore suitable for inclusion here.
 * This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Related works
 * This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.


 * thanks for taking time to review this article. I believe I have addressed your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your timely response to my review and for addressing my comments and suggestions. It is hereby a privilege for me to pass this article to Good Article status! Note: I am typing this response from my iPhone so I apologize for typographical or spelling errors. Thanks! -- West Virginian   (talk)  12:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)