Talk:Pure Heroine/GA1

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

Reviewer: TomasTomasTomas (talk · contribs) 01:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Well written:
 * 2) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
 * 3) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * 4) Verifiable with no original research:
 * 5) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * 6) 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * 7) it contains no original research; and
 * 8) it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
 * 9) Broad in its coverage:
 * 10) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * 11) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 12) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
 * 13) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 14) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
 * 15) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * 16) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * 17) Overall
 * 18)  - I personally say this is well written and worthy for GA status. While the only criteria that I could be convinced otherwise on is perhaps 1a, it seems to have a few errors which I recently cleaned up.