Talk:Emily Hale/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Oulfis (talk · contribs) 06:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take this on as my first GA review! I will work my way through the following checklist as I am able.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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:

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:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
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:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comment: Oulfis, just checking in since it's been a month since your last edit here. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review abandoned

As Oulfis has edited on two different days after the above ping and has note responded, I think we have to consider this review abandoned, since it hasn't been edited since the day it was opened a month and a half ago. Pinging Kingsif, to see whether they would be willing to take over the abandoned review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, BlueMoonset, my apologies for disappearing, and for not communicating appropriately. As you've detected, I found myself both forgetting about and oddly overwhelmed by the review; it is a relief for someone else to take it over. My sincerest thanks for stepping in to make sure it still takes place. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 03:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New review

Happy to take over @BlueMoonset:. Also pinging @Britishfinance: so they're aware.

The article is generally great, well-written. I notice that Oulfis also left a comment at the talkpage about the 'narrative' of the article. I think I agree; this is a style concern, not a coverage one. While I expect more coverage will come, this is what there is for now and that's acceptable. Reading the Relationship and Letter archive sections, it is not Hale-centric, it reads more like a story in the life of Eliot, so perhaps these parts can be tweaked. The rest of the style looks fine.

Done, tweaked this a little more. The core issue here is that we are missing the story from Hale's view (Eliot, somewhat nastily, burnt all of her letters to him, so we really only have his side of the story via his letters to her). I suspect that as his letters to her get analyzed, more of her story will emerge, and there has already been one biography of her produced. I suspect, given how big Eliot is as a subject, that several more biographies on her will emerge. Britishfinance (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are strong, but there are some statements missing an inline citation - I'm sure you can find them without a template, so I haven't added them - though sources support them. I also think the two sources with an Amazon url as the main url should have this converted to ASIN, instead, as the main url usually links to where the whole book can be read.

Done, fixed those inlines, and replaced the Amazon url with the Google Books url, so hope that works? Britishfinance (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any copyvio, though a check shows that there is perhaps too heavy quoting from some sources. If this could be cut back, it would be better.

Done, because this is a short article, and her story is still emerging, I was conscious of wanting to ensure that general statements about her were sourced to notable biographers, and/or academics covering her story, and I felt using their quotes were important to show the NPOV of this. I think this is a good idea for now, and the quotes are not too long? Britishfinance (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox is useful, image meets requirements. No other illustration needed. The talk page and history suggest this article is nice and stable.

on hold - perhaps some tweaking, some inline citations to be added, otherwise strong. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kingsif and appreciate you taking this on. Have made some changes above from your comments, and hope that works. Britishfinance (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passing this, though maybe more details on her plays in later life if it's available would be nice.

Kingsif (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Britishfinance (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]