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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:We Are Water Protectors/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose ( talk · contribs) 08:25, 29 July 2022 (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:

· · ·

Copyvio check

  • I reviewed all matches over 10% found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No issues. The phrases "We Are Water Protectors is a 2020 picture book written by Carole Lindstrom and illustrated by Michaela Goade" and "the book tells the story of an Ojibwe girl who fights against" both appear on the luckys.ca site but seem fine to me per WP:LIMITED.
    I'm actually pretty certain that the luckys.ca site is copying from Wikipedia, because I think they just copied the entirety of the previous stub version of the article that has been around since January 2021. There's not a really clear way to confirm that, but when I first expanded the article last December, nominated it for DYK, and ran it through Earwig, that website didn't appear to exist yet. DanCherek ( talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Images

  • Suitable FUR for the cover image. Other images are CC. No issues with captions or placement. ALT text, or "alt=refer to caption" could be added to the Lindstrom and Dakota Pipeline pictures.
    Alt text added. DanCherek ( talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Sources

  • All look to be suitable.
  • Spot checks on Lockett (2021), Wilson (2021), Knapp (2021), Egan (2021), and Goade (2021) - all good.

Synopsis

  • Seems fine from what I see in sources.

Background and publication

Writing and illustrations

  • Seems fine.

Reception

Infobox and lead

Thanks for your work on the article, DanCherek. I did a couple of searches to see whether the presentation of only positive reviews was appropriate, and I'm satisfied that it is. I could have made a couple of minor tweaks and passed this, but I through I'd give you an opportunity to reply to the points above - some of which, as noted, are optional. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks BennyOnTheLoose for the review, and thanks for checking – I also looked specifically for any criticism from reviewers, even minor points, but wasn't able to find anything to include. Responded to your helpful comments above, let me know if you have further feedback or suggestions! DanCherek ( talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Nice work, DanCherek. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 13:17, 29 July 2022 (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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:We Are Water Protectors/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose ( talk · contribs) 08:25, 29 July 2022 (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:

· · ·

Copyvio check

  • I reviewed all matches over 10% found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No issues. The phrases "We Are Water Protectors is a 2020 picture book written by Carole Lindstrom and illustrated by Michaela Goade" and "the book tells the story of an Ojibwe girl who fights against" both appear on the luckys.ca site but seem fine to me per WP:LIMITED.
    I'm actually pretty certain that the luckys.ca site is copying from Wikipedia, because I think they just copied the entirety of the previous stub version of the article that has been around since January 2021. There's not a really clear way to confirm that, but when I first expanded the article last December, nominated it for DYK, and ran it through Earwig, that website didn't appear to exist yet. DanCherek ( talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Images

  • Suitable FUR for the cover image. Other images are CC. No issues with captions or placement. ALT text, or "alt=refer to caption" could be added to the Lindstrom and Dakota Pipeline pictures.
    Alt text added. DanCherek ( talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Sources

  • All look to be suitable.
  • Spot checks on Lockett (2021), Wilson (2021), Knapp (2021), Egan (2021), and Goade (2021) - all good.

Synopsis

  • Seems fine from what I see in sources.

Background and publication

Writing and illustrations

  • Seems fine.

Reception

Infobox and lead

Thanks for your work on the article, DanCherek. I did a couple of searches to see whether the presentation of only positive reviews was appropriate, and I'm satisfied that it is. I could have made a couple of minor tweaks and passed this, but I through I'd give you an opportunity to reply to the points above - some of which, as noted, are optional. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks BennyOnTheLoose for the review, and thanks for checking – I also looked specifically for any criticism from reviewers, even minor points, but wasn't able to find anything to include. Responded to your helpful comments above, let me know if you have further feedback or suggestions! DanCherek ( talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Nice work, DanCherek. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 13:17, 29 July 2022 (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