Talk:Claire Underwood/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: TonyTheTiger(T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: Description "She is the wife of … from which the current series is derived." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 2: Reception "The role has been critically acclaimed … for this role at the 65th Primetime Emmy Awards." (summarised well in the lead) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: Description "She is the wife of … from which the current series is derived." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2: Reception " The role has been critically acclaimed … for this role at the 65th Primetime Emmy Awards." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Claire Underwood is a fictional character from the Netflix web television web series House of Cards played by Robin Wright. Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. (WP:BETTER) Fix short paragraphs. Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): None Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): None Check for Links to sister projects: None Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
None Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Stelter, Brian (The New York Times) Cornet, Roth (IGN) Bennett, Laura (New Republic) Stuever, Hank (The Independent) (The Denver Post) Stanley, Alessandra (The New York Times) Poniewozik, James (Time) deWolf Smith, Nancy (The Wall Street Journal) Lacob, Jace (The Daily Beast) Farley, Christopher John (The Wall Street Journal) Zurawik, David (The Baltimore Sun) Hyman, Vicki (NJ.com) Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done The New York Times IGN New Republic The Independent The Denver Post Time The Daily Beast The Wall Street Journal The Baltimore Sun NJ.com Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images (None)

Images:

NA 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS): Check for copyright status: Check for non-free content (WP:NFC): Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR): 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE): Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE): Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):

As per the above checklist, the issues are:

• Fix short paragraphs.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I'm delighted to see your work here. I'm putting the article on hold. All the best! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 14:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)