Talk:The Video Collection 93:99/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

More great work from you, Legolas. Just a few comments (not GA stuff though):
 * I gave the 'Formats' section a quick copy-edit. Please make sure that you're happy with it.
 * 'Warner Music Vision' in the lead could be wikified; why is it mentioned as this in the lead and as 'Warner Bros. Records' later on?
 * Could some screenshot(s) of music videos be placed alongside critical comments to further describe her images referred to?
 * For consistency, chart positions (especially under 100) are usually spelt out.