# Talk:Boom Pow

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boom Pow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  17:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguations: No links found.
Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.


### Checking against the GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
No original research found. AGF for inaccessible sources
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
NPOV
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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

This is well written, comprehensive, and all of the sources check out. It meets the criteria as it is, so I see no reason to put this on hold. JAGUAR  12:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)