Talk:Oh! How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning/GA2
GA Review 2[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Another good article. This one is quite comprehensive for an article on a song, and leaves the reader nothing wanting. The inclusion of the actual song is an added bonus that's really what's missing from most GAs (and many FAs) these days. It appears that the concerns from the last review have been addressed, except those which I don't personally think are necessary for passing a GA. I have also fixed a number of small MOS hiccups. Congratulations! —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)