Talk:Power pop/GA2

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

Reviewer: Cioriolio (talk · contribs) 16:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing, looks good, it's my first time, let me know if I do something wrong. 16:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Well written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2] Yes

Verifiable with no original research:[3] it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4] all inline 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; it contains no original research; andit contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Yes

Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[5] and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yes

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Yes

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[6] Yes

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[7] media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Yes

So, it looks good. I made the minor cosmetic edits suggested in the past review, also read through the talk page and everything seems to be fine. Thanks! 15:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cioriolio (talk • contribs)