# Talk:Assassination of Wade Perrin

This review is transcluded from Talk:Assassination of Wade Perrin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Luxtaythe2nd (talk · contribs) 11:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a point-by-point review of this article. Because the review requires me to do rather intense checking across the article, I will be doing this one by one. Helping and pointing out issues with the review is welcome.

Well written:
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable 
spelling and grammar are correct 
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for
lead sections, 
layout, 
words to watch, 
fiction, 
and list incorporation 
The article is well-written and avoids weasels whenever it can. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 11:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Verifiable with no original research:
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline 
all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged 
it contains no original research 
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism 
Sources are all good, maybe could use more variety. No original research found, nearly every sentence is cited.
Broad in its coverage:
it addresses the main aspects of the topic 
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail 
Relatively short but swell. Compared to its size, it's interesting how many guidelines it checks out. Halfway through. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 12:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each 
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute 
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: 
media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content 
media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. 
Review done! Phew. Generally, I'd say this article, while pushing limits in some areas, is a good article. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 14:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)