Talk:Dril/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 22:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No concerns with the prose, spelling, or grammar.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~Given the length of the article, I think the lead could be longer. It's missing summaries of the doxxing, "influence on internet culture" section, and his other projects.~~ Expanded lead is an excellent summary of the article now. Layout is sensible. No concerns with regards to words to watch. Fictional elements (ie the dril persona) are clearly delineated as such. I really like the boxed tweet reproductions as opposed to screenshots. They're a unique way of presenting the relevant tweets, in my opinion.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reference list is correctly formatted, references are clear and easy to read.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Although citations to Buzzfeed are unusual on WP, in this case I think it can be considered a reliable source for the people it interviews. Ditto for citations to Twitter.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is cited and reffed, no conclusions are drawn that are not supported by the refs. No WP:SYNTH.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	All quotes attributed in-text and are correctly cited with references.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Gives a good overview of dril's style and impact such that you would understand the topic reasonably well even if you knew nothing about it when you started the article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	With a prolific and memetic topic like dril, there is a danger of going overboard with examples, but this article avoids that by focusing on particular tweets that have been specifically remarked on by reliable sources. Again, there are enough examples that you understand the style and the humor, but not so many that it overtakes the article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No POV concerns. Any POVs are quoted and attributed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I made a few tweaks during my review and the author has been making some here and there but the majority of the content is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The work put into the fair use rationale for the dril avatar (and also used on the lead image of the two dril screenshots) by Ajfweb is scarily thorough. I'm impressed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevance of images is clear via the captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Brandt Luke Zorn, if you can expand the lead a little to summarize more of the article's contents, I think this is a solid pass.~~ Lead has been expanded, all else is good. I say this is a solid GA pass! :D

Comment: review basically ready to pass, just holding on the expansion of the lead or a reply from BLZ. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go! Incredible work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]