Talk:Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zidane tribal (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Well-written?
(a) the prose is clear and concise, 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.

2. 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.

3. 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).

4. Neutral?
it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Stable?
it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. 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.
 * Only one image is the sole shortcoming of the article. Zidane tribal (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)