From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Reviewer: Vacant0 ( talk · contribs) 08:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply


Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. -- Vacant0 ( talk) 08:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c ( OR):
    d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Initial comments

  • There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 17.4% in similarity.
  • There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
  • The article is stable. There has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
  • No previous GA reviews.

General comments

Final comments

@ TonyTheTiger: The article will be on hold for a week so that you can fix these issues that I've pointed out in the review. Cheers, -- Vacant0 ( talk) 19:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Vacant0, as I understand your review, the only changes that I see are needed is to replace dead URLs. Let me know if I am missing anything.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I've noted everything that you should do above, this is to: add alt texts to images, shorten the short description to 40 or less characters, fix the 7 dead URLs, replace New York Post sources with reliable sources, and add a source for her height. Vacant0 ( talk) 08:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I've striked what has been completed so far. Once these two more issues get fixed, I'll promote the article to GA status. Vacant0 ( talk) 08:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TonyTheTiger: It's been a week since this GA review has started and all issues related to GA criteria have been addressed. I'll promote the article to GA status now but I'd like to see alt texts added and the short desc shortened (less than 40 characters). Vacant0 ( talk) 14:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Reviewer: Vacant0 ( talk · contribs) 08:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply


Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. -- Vacant0 ( talk) 08:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c ( OR):
    d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Initial comments

  • There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 17.4% in similarity.
  • There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
  • The article is stable. There has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
  • No previous GA reviews.

General comments

Final comments

@ TonyTheTiger: The article will be on hold for a week so that you can fix these issues that I've pointed out in the review. Cheers, -- Vacant0 ( talk) 19:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Vacant0, as I understand your review, the only changes that I see are needed is to replace dead URLs. Let me know if I am missing anything.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I've noted everything that you should do above, this is to: add alt texts to images, shorten the short description to 40 or less characters, fix the 7 dead URLs, replace New York Post sources with reliable sources, and add a source for her height. Vacant0 ( talk) 08:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I've striked what has been completed so far. Once these two more issues get fixed, I'll promote the article to GA status. Vacant0 ( talk) 08:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TonyTheTiger: It's been a week since this GA review has started and all issues related to GA criteria have been addressed. I'll promote the article to GA status now but I'd like to see alt texts added and the short desc shortened (less than 40 characters). Vacant0 ( talk) 14:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook