Talk:Grrrrrrrrrrr!!/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 05:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

TonyTheTiger, as promised, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and suggestions that should first be addressed. Thank you for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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):

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.:

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:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the painting, establishes the paintings necessary context, and explains why the painting is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the painting is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• The image of the painting has adequate non-free media information and use rationale and the necessary Non-free 2D art and Non-free fair use templates.
• Because the lede should be a comprehensive summarization of all parts of the article, I suggest including a brief sentence or two from the "Related works" section. Perhaps just mention that Lichtenstein later created Arrrrrff!, an oil and graphite pencil on canvas painting depicting a dog from a subsequent issue of Our Fighting Forces.
  • This is already addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• All three images in this article will need alt captions per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Background

• The Our Fighting Forces image is acceptable for use here, as it has Non-free media information and use rationale attached and also has the Non-free comic license and Non-free fair use in license attached.
• Should the first sentence be reworded to say "the inspiration for this painting..." versus "the inspiration for this image"?
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum should be rendered and wiki-linked as such in its first mention in the prose outside the lede.
  • already addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• In the final sentence of this section, I suggest rending it as "The work appeared on the cover of the November 1993 issue of ARTnews."
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Details

• The image of Lichtenstein is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore suitable for inclusion here.
• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Related works

• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

West Virginian thanks for taking time to review this article. I believe I have addressed your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, thank you for your timely response to my review and for addressing my comments and suggestions. It is hereby a privilege for me to pass this article to Good Article status! Note: I am typing this response from my iPhone so I apologize for typographical or spelling errors. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)