Talk:Elizabeth Timothy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 05:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next couple of days. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this on, Ganesha811. Doug is recovering from a broken shoulder and probably won't be able to respond for a while. I will be available to address your points in the meantime. — The Most Comfortable Chair 19:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Most Comfortable Chair: Thanks for responding to this. See User_talk:Ganesha811#Elizabeth_Timothy_GAN. Ganesha811 will probably be reviewing other printer/publishers as well and just be backlogging all of them to when I can respond. I should be able to start responding to reviews in the first week of Janurary of 2022. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Most Comfortable Chair:, @Doug Coldwell: this article is just about ready to pass (see two minor points below). Happy to pass now after these quick changes, or wait till January as previously discussed. Happy Christmas! Ganesha811 (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits and the review. I have implemented your suggestions. Happy Christmas to you too! — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes! Congrats to anyone who worked on it - I'll do the needful now. Ganesha811 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual procedure, I've gone through and made the prose tweaks I'd advise myself, to save us both time. However, if there are any changes you don't like, just let me know so we can discuss it. Other than that, the prose is ready to pass in my view. Pass - any further discussion can be worked out on talk.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well-referenced. Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are reliable all-around. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No research from primary sources, secondary and no uncited sentences. Pass. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Still to check. Nothing else significant found. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No excessive detail or "fancruft". Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No NPOV issues. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No significant changes since August. No edit wars. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images appear good. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Some minor caption improvements: "The Timothy print shop", "Reenactment" rather than "Likeness", "Museum recreation of two presses with drying newspapers." Issues addressed. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.