Talk:Goosebumps/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (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.	The prose is indeed clear and concise throughout. Perhaps a bit too much on short choppy sentences, but that's something to look at in more depth for peer review and/or copyediting, going forward.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good use of structure and organization, throughout.
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 to citations which provide info on verifiability to reliable sources.
	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).	Good use of in-line citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Relies primarily on secondary sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It is indeed broad in its coverage, providing secondary sourced discussion along multiple aspects of analysis.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes, but just a little choppy at times, see above.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	NPOV tone used throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article edit history and article talk page history both stable upon review going back over one month.
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.	Three images used, 2 fair use with appropriate rationales, and one free-use with good licensing.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are indeed relevant and captioned appropriately.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good job overall.

GA Review passed. — Cirt (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]