Talk:Lenalee Lee/GA1

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

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 02:10, 13 October 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:
 * Is the comment by Christian regarding Lenalee's possible feelings for Allen necessary? It kind of sounds like trivia, and distracts from the rest of the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What comment? You mean when she says "maybe"? I only found it notable because one of the commenters from reception comments on the possible relationship between Lenalee and Allen. . Reply me and I will remove it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It detracts from the article, and the information is already discussed elsewhere. It would probably be best to remove it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It detracts from the article, and the information is already discussed elsewhere. It would probably be best to remove it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. .Tintor2 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * Dead links are archived, so no problem there. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 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):
 * :: See my comment above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

So far so good: the article is well-written, no copyright problems have been detected, article's images are properly captioned and attributed, the article is stable, and all statements are properly sourced. There is still the minor issue raised above, so until this is resolved I am not yet passing this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All issues have been addressed, and so I'm happy to say that this GAN has passed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)