# Talk:Video Anthology (video)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Destiny's Child Video Anthology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


### Stability review
I've looked over the article edit history going back to inception and found no problems.
Also upon inspection talk page shows no ongoing conflicts either.
Next, on to image review. — Cirt (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


### Image review
File:Destiny Child Video Anthology.jpg = one image used in article, fair use image.
@My love is love:Image page fair use rationale unacceptable at this time. Please see a better model at File:Weird Al Yankovic Permanent Record.jpg. Can you please improve the fair use rationale at the image page? — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've gone ahead and fixed the image page myself. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you a lot. I Am... ***D.D. 15:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


### Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 4, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing quality is good. Lede intro sect could be expanded a tad bit more, but good enough for GA at this time.
2. Verifiable?: Duly cited throughout, with good use of in-line citations and reference formatting.
3. Broad in coverage?: Good job on coverage major aspects, including Background, Release, Reception, and track info.
4. Neutral point of view?: Article is pretty good at staying matter-of-fact, with neutral tone throughout.
5. Stable? Stability is fine for good article, per stability review, above.
6. Images?: One image wasn't good enough on image page, but I fixed that myself, so now it's good.
It's all good. :) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)