Talk:Poodle Hat/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grondemar (talk · contribs) 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Will aim to post this review tomorrow. –Grondemar 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, it didn't end up being tomorrow, but I finally got this review done. Please see below:

This is a very comprehensive article that is very close to GA standard. I made some copyedits throughout the article; please review. I only have one concern that I'd like to see addressed prior to passing this review:


 * While all images are properly licensed and have appropriate captions, all could use the addition of alt text per WP:ALT. While alt text is not a GA requirement per se, I find it is relatively easy to add and helps improve accessibility for those who might not be able to see the images.  This Signpost article demonstrates why this is so important. For most of the pictures, alt text of "Ben Folds" or "Dweezil Zappa playing the guitar" or "Enimem on stage performing" should be sufficient; the album cover should probably be described in detail.

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:
 * 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:
 * 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):
 * 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:
 * Placeholder for WP:ALT concern above
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This review is placed |16px on hold for a minimum of seven days to address the above concern.
 * 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:
 * Placeholder for WP:ALT concern above
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This review is placed |16px on hold for a minimum of seven days to address the above concern.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This review is placed |16px on hold for a minimum of seven days to address the above concern.

Thanks! –Grondemar 21:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing this and performing copyedits. I have added alt text to all the images. How does these edits look?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for incorporating the alt text. I made some minor modifications.  I also had to replace double image with multiple image in order to get the alt text to appear properly for the double image.  With all my concerns addressed I am happy to  pass this article as a Good Article.  Congratulations! –Grondemar 06:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)