Talk:Evita Griskenas

Evita Griskenas has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 11, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Gymnastics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gymnastics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gymnastics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GymnasticsWikipedia:WikiProject GymnasticsTemplate:WikiProject GymnasticsGymnastics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's sport: Gymnastics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Women's gymnastics task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Olympics Low‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

over 4.0 GPA

If this is true, it needs explanation. A 5.0 grading scale? A 4.0 scale with lagniappe for A+? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. joeyquism (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Evita Griskenas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Riley1012 (talk · contribs) 17:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this in the coming days. Consider this a QPQ for your review of my first GAN Sergio Brown :) joeyquism (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried getting this done at the airport, but I got IP blocked on the WiFi lol.

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.	Prose is really good! Granted, it's hard to get wishy-washy when you're stating the facts. There is only one comment I have here: Lead Not sure if the citation for the date of birth should be included here. Would likely be better in the early life section. The rest of my comments would be minutiae, so I'm not sure that it's even fair to write them out here. Well done!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No glaring MOS violations that I could find here.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are clearly listed, and are of reliable quality.
	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).	All sentences are supplemented by in-line citations, whether they are directly at the end of the sentence itself or at the end of adjacent sentences. While I would personally tag each individual sentence with a reference, there's nothing wrong with how you're doing it here. Spotcheck [2]: Good. [5]: Good. [11]: Good. [16]: Good. [23]: Good. [27]: Good. [35]: Good. [39]: Good. [42]: Good. [48]: Good. [55]: Good. [57]: Good. [60]: Good. [68]: Good. [71]: Good. [77]: Good. [82]: Good. [86]: Good, though I would restructure this citation to match the others [93]: Good. [95]: Good. [100]: Not sure if this supports the claim that she speaks Lithuanian, although it does mention that she's studying Spanish. Holding on spotcheck.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Nothing resembling original research here. Everything stated is factual and backed up.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio check returns 10.7%, which is in itself acceptable. Only things flagged are sentences that could not have been phrased any differently, or the names of competitions.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is comprehensive in its coverage of Griskenas' life and career.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused and does not veer into extraneous subjects.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Prose is not overly laudatory or critical.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars here.
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.	Image was tagged as "own work", with a CC-BY-SA-4.0 attribution license. The image seems to have been cropped from an Instagram post, which I believe is acceptable under the same CC license; however, the own work designation was not acceptable. I've since changed this, so this should pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image is of Griskenas, the subject of the article. Relevancy is obvious.
	7. Overall assessment.	Going to put this on hold until citation [100] is resolved. This might be the least amount of writing I've done for a GAN review; you did a really great job with this article! @Riley1012: feel free to let me know if you have any questions, and I hope you're having a wonderful week so far! joeyquism (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyquism: Thanks for your review! I have addressed all of your points :). -Riley1012 (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work! Passing now :) joeyquism (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.