| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 07:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'll be reviewing this article. I can't imagine it's going to fail, but all the same, I'll go over it and check everything. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Prose is exemplary. A few minor typos, but I fixed them as I read the article.
- B. It complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation:
- The lead cuts off after 2003, leaving the rest ambiguous. I've added a sentence on her retirement. In the body, I changed the phrases "gave teeth" and " you".
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it
verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- Has notes and references lists.
- B. All
in-line citations are from
reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines:
- Comprehensive citations. All sources appear to be reliable.
- C. It contains
no original research:
- Comprehensive citations. Spot check suggests information accurately corresponds to citations.
- D. It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism:
- No apparent violations. Passes Earwig test.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Adequately covers early life and career
- B. It stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style):
The only section of concern is STS-58. It goes into detail about the roles and responsibilities of other members of the crew, which may be unnecessary for this article.After consideration, this information is still brief enough to provide reasonable context.
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Is it
neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- None of that pesky anti-space bias (or any other editorial bias).
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- No recent edits.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images?
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- All images are tagged as public domain.
- B. Images are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
- All images are relevant and have descriptive captions.
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- The article meets and exceeds the GA criteria in nearly all areas. I found no issues but a few minor nitpicks that could be fixed immediately, so I've addressed them myself. This article easily passes its good article nomination. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 08:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 07:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'll be reviewing this article. I can't imagine it's going to fail, but all the same, I'll go over it and check everything. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Prose is exemplary. A few minor typos, but I fixed them as I read the article.
- B. It complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation:
- The lead cuts off after 2003, leaving the rest ambiguous. I've added a sentence on her retirement. In the body, I changed the phrases "gave teeth" and " you".
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it
verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- Has notes and references lists.
- B. All
in-line citations are from
reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines:
- Comprehensive citations. All sources appear to be reliable.
- C. It contains
no original research:
- Comprehensive citations. Spot check suggests information accurately corresponds to citations.
- D. It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism:
- No apparent violations. Passes Earwig test.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Adequately covers early life and career
- B. It stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style):
The only section of concern is STS-58. It goes into detail about the roles and responsibilities of other members of the crew, which may be unnecessary for this article.After consideration, this information is still brief enough to provide reasonable context.
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Is it
neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- None of that pesky anti-space bias (or any other editorial bias).
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- No recent edits.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images?
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- All images are tagged as public domain.
- B. Images are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
- All images are relevant and have descriptive captions.
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- The article meets and exceeds the GA criteria in nearly all areas. I found no issues but a few minor nitpicks that could be fixed immediately, so I've addressed them myself. This article easily passes its good article nomination. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 08:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail: