Talk:Assassination of Wade Perrin

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

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Perrin in 1870
Wade Perrin in 1870

Created by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 03:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: After a good look through, I think ALT1 is better as most people are likely to not know who Perrin is, so having a description is helpful. Hook is interesting and everything looks good. Happy to pass. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Assassination of Wade Perrin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Luxtaythe2nd (talk · contribs) 11:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This is a point-by-point review of this article. Because the review requires me to do rather intense checking across the article, I will be doing this one by one. Helping and pointing out issues with the review is welcome.

  1. Well written:
    the prose is clear, concise, and understandable
    spelling and grammar are correct
    it complies with the manual of style guidelines for
    lead sections,
    layout,
    words to watch,
    fiction,
    and list incorporation
    The article is well-written and avoids weasels whenever it can. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 11:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
    all inline 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
    it contains no original research
    it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism
    Sources are all good, maybe could use more variety. No original research found, nearly every sentence is cited.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    it addresses the main aspects of the topic
    it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
    Relatively short but swell. Compared to its size, it's interesting how many guidelines it checks out. Halfway through. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 12:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
  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 media such as images, video, or audio:
    media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
    media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review done! Phew. Generally, I'd say this article, while pushing limits in some areas, is a good article. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 14:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]