Jump to content

Talk:Boom Pow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 00:13, 12 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 6 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Alexandra Stan}}, {{WikiProject Electronic music}}, {{WikiProject Pop music}}, {{WikiProject Romania}}, {{WikiProject Songs}}, {{WikiProject Women in Music}}. Remove 2 deprecated parameters: class, importance.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articleBoom Pow has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starBoom Pow is part of the Alesta series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 9, 2016Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Boom Pow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  17:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    No original research found. AGF for inaccessible sources
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    NPOV
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This is well written, comprehensive, and all of the sources check out. It meets the criteria as it is, so I see no reason to put this on hold. JAGUAR  12:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]