Talk:Emily Ratajkowski/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 15:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

One image used in article at present, File:March 2012 Issue 3 cover of Treats!.jpg, with appropriate fair use rationale on image page. I've suggested on the talk page that an editor to the article could try to email her agency representatives for a free-use image to upload to Wikimedia Commons through the commons:Commons:OTRS process, but obviously this is not necessary. No image issues here. Next on to Stability review, after waiting for some answers to questions posted to TonyTheTiger. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Stability review

Stability review passes at this time. After discussion on his user talk page, I agree with the assessment of stability by nominator, and also after I looked over the article edit history and talk page history in a bit more depth, seems stable for purposes of this GA Review and according to WP:WIAGA as noted by nominator TonyTheTiger. Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Rest of GA Review

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.	I would still strongly suggest copy edit from WP:GOCE and perhaps from people you can get who are previously uninvolved and have never even seen this article before as additional copy editors, but for the most part the writing quality is indeed pretty good throughout.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes, and lede intro sect adequately summarizes article contents per WP:LEAD.
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.	Pending
	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).	Very good use of in-line citations, throughout.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article does indeed rely upon mostly secondary sources throughout. To the extent primary sources are used they are at a bare minimum and only to verify direct facts such as numbers and figures.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers multiple varying aspects of individual's life and career.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	And yet it does cover her life and career without going into any unnecessary depth, article could even be expanded upon further in the future, not necessary for expansion at this time, but has potential for further quality improvements down the road.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article text appears to present subject matter in a neutral, matter-of-fact and therefore NPOV tone, throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Passes here, see comments on stability, above.
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.	Passes here, see comments on images, above.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Suggestion: You may wish to attempt to contact her agency and/or other representatives and try to obtain a free-use licensed image to upload to Wikimedia Commons under the commons:Commons:OTRS process.
	7. Overall assessment.	Nice work overall. Well done. — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)