Talk:Checheyigen/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 15:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to this one soon! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary stuff: Image is good and CC-licensed (and has alt-text, yay!) It's also stable, and none of the quickfail criteria apply. Moving on...

Text:

excellent is a bit puffy and I feel unhelpful - since it could be interpreted as particularly enjoyable marriages. I know you're getting at strategic marriages, so that might be better to use here.
- Changed to "advantageous".
  - Nice. - G
Wouldn't the big parenthetical statement work better as an EFN here? Not necessary obvs
- Done.
It might be good to explicitly state that the year of her death is unknown in the later life section.
- Annoyingly, no source actually says that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Argh, always a shame. Well, nothing you can do there - G

Overall very good, broad coverage of a fairly obscure figure. Source review to come.

Checked Broadbridge 2016, May 2018, Broadbridge 2018, and Dunnell 2023. No discrepancies I can find, and it seems to cover these sources quite well. I couldn't find any other good sources on her, so I assume you did your research! Looks good to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:08, 21 October 2024 (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.