Talk:Madonna: An Intimate Biography/GA1

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

Reviewer: Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Criteria


 * Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * PASS


 * Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and (c) it contains no original research.
 * PASS


 * Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * I've done an extensive copy edit and I'm ready to pass the article to GA. However, there are a couple of things that would improve the article. First, find any other formats in which the book has been published and enter the information in the "Publication" section. These formats would be paperback, audiobook, electronics such as Kindle, and others. Check Amazon.com and use the site as your reference. Second, a review from the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, or a London paper would add cachet to the "Response" section.
 * ON HOLD
 * I added reviews from The Mirror, Chicago Sun-Times and others, but did not find any in The New York Times, The Washington Post or the Library Journal. Formats added. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PASS


 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * PASS


 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * PASS


 * Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * PASS

If you want a second opinion on the review, let me know. I'll return in a week. Good work! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)