Talk:Madvillainy/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 09:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I am giving this article a GA Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 09:10, 19 February 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:
 * 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:
 * The form looks good but there are some issues - please see 2B & 2C. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Ref #55 requires a login. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * The Track listing and Personnel sections are unsourced. You can use Template:Cite AV media to directly cite from the album notes etc. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran the copyvio tool. There is a commonality between this article and http://www.egotripland.com/album-cover-madvillain-madvillainy-jeff-jank/  bu that is only because of some quoted material and since this is clearly-identified, that is not an issue. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * See closing statement. Shearonink (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * See closing statement. Shearonink (talk) 05:15, 26 February 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:
 * No edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Images all have the proper permissions etc. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Well-done article, well-referenced, lays out the influence of the album and its cover art very well. I feel like I understand something I had no idea of previously. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Well-done article, well-referenced, lays out the influence of the album and its cover art very well. I feel like I understand something I had no idea of previously. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well-done article, well-referenced, lays out the influence of the album and its cover art very well. I feel like I understand something I had no idea of previously. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)