# Talk:Harley & Ivy Meet Betty & Veronica

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harley & Ivy Meet Betty & Veronica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm glad to see someone else has an interest in wild Archie crossovers.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Please review my copyedits for accuracy and clarity.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
no concern
B. All in-line 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, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
no concern
C. It contains no original research: 
no concern
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
no concern
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Who is Laura Braga, and why was she chosen for this project? Is she normally a DC artist? Did any of the reviewers comment on her style?
I've added a little more detail on Braga. Unfortunately, after searching through web sources and the comics issues and TPB, I cannot find any direct info about how she came to be involved in this project. I've added some reviews about her art in the "Critical response" section.
Each issue had at least 2 variant covers, and I don't believe any were done by Braga. I think this is worth mentioning in the publication section, if you can find sources. Here's one.
I've searched web sources and the comics issues and TPB, and it seems there was one variant cover for each issue besides the first. I've added a sentence in the publication section about the variants. I didn't specifically name any of the cover artists as the covers for each issue (both main and variant) were done by different artists.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
no concern
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
no concern. I added an alt text description, but feel free to adjust it as you see fit.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Everything looks pretty good, but there are a few places I think the article needs to be expanded before I can promote it. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: Hi, thanks for the review. Sorry I missed it previously, hence the late response. I'm busy in real life right now, but I'll address the issues you've brought up as soon as I can. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Cool. No rush. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: I've worked on the article to try and address the issues you've brought up. Do have a look and let me know your feedback. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Everything looks great. Happy to promote this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)