Talk:The Haunted Mask/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 19:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:
   (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; Y
   (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Y
   
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
   (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;Y
   (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
   
   • There's no mention of the book's critical or commercial success in the lead...consider adding one or two sentences somewhere in the second paragraph about it.

   •  Done Fearstreetsaga (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

   (c) it contains no original research.Y
   
3. Broad in its coverage:
   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;Y
   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).Y
   
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
   
   • Could you find any more reviews of this book? Also, any negative reviews of it? Generally, it seems like there are just more reviews. If you can't/couldn't find any, that's fine too.

   • See comment below. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.Y
   
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
   (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;Y
   (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.Y
   

A good, concise article. I'll put it on hold for a week to give you time to add a sentence or two about the commercial/critical success and possibly look for more reviews. Otherwise, this article is on the fast track to GA passage. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 19:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I took care of the one problem (let me know if any changes need to be made to the sentence). I will look for more reviews from reliable sources and will respond with an update tomorrow. Thanks for the review. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: I couldn't find any more reviews from reliable sources. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I spent about an hour looking for additional reviews as well, but found no more than those which you have already included. I'm willing to pass this article in that case. Good job. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 01:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)