GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Montanabw ( talk · contribs) 19:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I will review this article, stay tuned for my comments and suggestions. (Ping me if I don't do this in the next day or two...)
Montanabw
(talk)
19:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | AGF on Spanish sources, but from what I can examine either in English or via machine translation appears to check out |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Still needs some expansion, but no edit wars or major disputes. Meets stability requirement |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
@ Montanabw: is it possible you could wait another week on this one? I think it can be improved over the next week. I'll put it up on the WP:Women board as a collaboration target for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
All for now, hope this helps guide you. Montanabw (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I've given it a read and copyedit. I looked in google books but couldn't find anything further. Susun is correct that there's oddly next to nothing about her in English sources, not that it is essential anyway. I think Susun's done a remarkable job of finding all of this on her. It is in my opinion now GA quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Montanabw: As many addressed as possible and much expanded and improved I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm here. The lack of English sources is not a concern now that I know you've done a diligent search. Other comments to follow. Montanabw (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Montanabw ( talk · contribs) 19:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I will review this article, stay tuned for my comments and suggestions. (Ping me if I don't do this in the next day or two...)
Montanabw
(talk)
19:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | AGF on Spanish sources, but from what I can examine either in English or via machine translation appears to check out |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Still needs some expansion, but no edit wars or major disputes. Meets stability requirement |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
@ Montanabw: is it possible you could wait another week on this one? I think it can be improved over the next week. I'll put it up on the WP:Women board as a collaboration target for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
All for now, hope this helps guide you. Montanabw (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I've given it a read and copyedit. I looked in google books but couldn't find anything further. Susun is correct that there's oddly next to nothing about her in English sources, not that it is essential anyway. I think Susun's done a remarkable job of finding all of this on her. It is in my opinion now GA quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Montanabw: As many addressed as possible and much expanded and improved I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm here. The lack of English sources is not a concern now that I know you've done a diligent search. Other comments to follow. Montanabw (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)