Talk:The Weight of the Mask/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Chchcheckit (talk · contribs) 17:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 13:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this! Apologies for the delay.

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Sources are all reliable; all info is sourced as well with end-of-paragraph citations. One issue I do see is in the "Chart performance for The Weight of the Mask" list, the references go directly after the chart, but for the "Release history for The Weight of the Mask" table they have their own column. For consistency, they should either both have a ref column or neither should. Pinging @Chchcheckit:. Besides that, it looks really good! Sorry for the delay in reviewing.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No plagiarism, Earwig finds no major copyvios.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Relatively long, goes in-depth in background and other sections which are also reasonably sized.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems neutral to me, no weasel words or peacockery are present.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Edit war checker flashes grey (meaning no edit warring).

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images seems relatively high-quality, are relevant, and are properly tagged. NFF in infobox is also relevant and a use case exists.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I will ping you once the table is complete. :) E_F⁵ 13:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Ty. Also, of quick note: does the lead need improving // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks just fine. I'd say a third paragraph could be included, but that isn't required. E_F⁵ 17:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say a third paragraph could be included, but that isn't required. wdym? // Chchcheckit (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It just seems a little short on my end, that's all. E_F⁵`

Eh, I try to be efficient where I can. // Chchcheckit (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@EF5 Fixed what was left. Ty. // Chchcheckit (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, congrats! E_F⁵ 19:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.