Talk:Permanent Record: Al in the Box/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

Article edit history upon inspection is fine going back over one (1) year.
I looked at the talk page and found no ongoing conflicts or major issues there either.

Next, on to image review. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Weird Al Yankovic Permanent Record.jpg = fair use image, appropriate fair use rationale on image page, no issues here.

Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pass as GA

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.	Writing quality is indeed good for this article. Grammar and diction are appropriate throughout.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section is of satisfactory size and the article has a good structure and layout.
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.	Duly cited throughout with appropriate citations.
	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).	Very meticulous use of in-line citations, I like it. :)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Relies primarily on secondary sources and utilizes a smattering of primary sources only for matter-of-fact info.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Certainly broad enough, but some sections could be expanded in the future like perhaps reception but good enough for GA quality.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is indeed focused on the topic and could even be expanded in some places as a future idea.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Presented in a neutral tone throughout, no problems here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues here, per stability review, above.
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.	No issues here, per image review, above.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues here, per image review above.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good article on an interesting topic related to parody and satire. — Cirt (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]