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.
It is possible that there is copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector
has reported 49.5% in similarity. Will analyse this in depth later in the review. False positive.
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
Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
No problems were found in the lede.
No problems were found in the rest of the article.
In the infobox, change the break tags (<br/>) to an unbulleted list using the {{unbulleted list|first item|second item}} template.
The article complies with the rest of
MOS:LEDE,
MOS:LAYOUT,
MOS:WTW, and
MOS:WAF guidelines. There are no embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping
MOS:EMBED.
Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
Fixed one referencing issue.
Listed references are reliable, they are mostly news websites.
"Student" and her mother's name in the infobox is unsourced.
Ref 26 has author link to
Steve Barton who died in 2001. I doubt that it's the same person, so that link should be removed.
Spotchecked Ref 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 25–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
Ref 14 cites blisters but not cuts and bruises.
Checking potential copyright violations.
False positive. The reason why it was picked up is the quotes in the article. I conclude that there is no copyright violations, and the quotes are properly used in the article.
Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
The article addresses the main aspects and it stays focused on the topics.
Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
Checking whether the article is stable.
As noted in the initial comments, there has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
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.
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.
It is possible that there is copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector
has reported 49.5% in similarity. Will analyse this in depth later in the review. False positive.
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
Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
No problems were found in the lede.
No problems were found in the rest of the article.
In the infobox, change the break tags (<br/>) to an unbulleted list using the {{unbulleted list|first item|second item}} template.
The article complies with the rest of
MOS:LEDE,
MOS:LAYOUT,
MOS:WTW, and
MOS:WAF guidelines. There are no embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping
MOS:EMBED.
Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
Fixed one referencing issue.
Listed references are reliable, they are mostly news websites.
"Student" and her mother's name in the infobox is unsourced.
Ref 26 has author link to
Steve Barton who died in 2001. I doubt that it's the same person, so that link should be removed.
Spotchecked Ref 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 25–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
Ref 14 cites blisters but not cuts and bruises.
Checking potential copyright violations.
False positive. The reason why it was picked up is the quotes in the article. I conclude that there is no copyright violations, and the quotes are properly used in the article.
Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
The article addresses the main aspects and it stays focused on the topics.
Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
Checking whether the article is stable.
As noted in the initial comments, there has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
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.