Talk:Even the Stars Look Lonesome/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Christine, just putting down a marker for now, it may be a couple of days before I actually get around to reviewing. Could be interesting, I usually write and review nature articles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, you obviously know what you're doing, so just nitpicking before I pass this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks; how nice you are. I appreciate the nitpicking.

• The lead is a bit short, even for a short GA; no mention of sales?

It's still short, but I think I've expanded it all I could.

• Some of your web citations have "retrieved", but no date

Fixed.

• refs 6 and 9. Settle on New York or N.Y., not both variations

Went with N.Y.

• ref 10 shouldn't "Smithsonian" be italicised?

Done.

• ref 18, dedication to Winfrey, I would have thought should be formatted as a footnote rather than a citation. It's a comment, not a source

My practice is if there are less than 3 footnotes, I keep them with the Citations section. Some articles even place them there if there are many more than that. This is the first time I've had this kind of feedback, but in the interest of following the suggestions of the reviewers, I went ahead and made the change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

My comment was based on personal preference rather than deep insight into mos, so not a big deal either waty as long as it's a conscious decision Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• You don't need her name in the inauguration image, images are assumed to be of the article's subject unless otherwise stated

Again, a new piece of feedback, but followed.

• making it a bestseller — this sounds very cause-and-effect. Are you saying it wouldn't have been a bestseller otherwise? If not, something less assertive, like "helping" could be better

Ok.

• She salutes Black women and other Black women writers — I can see why you have capitalised "Black" in spokesperson for Blacks and women, I'm less convinced about these two, where I would lower case. However, I'm a Brit, so this may be a BE/AE thing (I had a discussion about "proven/proved" in my last review).

This question comes up in every MA-article review. Here's my answer: [1] It's so common, I think that I should declare it every time I submit a new one for any kind of review. I hesitate, though, because it strikes me as presumptuous, and answering it takes advantage of a teachable moment. But I digress, as I'm often apt to do. Thanks for the review; as I say above, I appreciate it. And dude, edit conflict! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the caption thing is MoS, although adherence drifts in and out even at FAC. The Black/white thing is pretty much what I expected, again just checking. OK, let's do it!

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: