Jump to content

Talk:Françoise Mouly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Françoise Mouly's Birth Date

[edit]

For a long time, Mouly's birth date was not included in this article. I discovered it in some official documentation and edited the article to include it (all of which is a matter of public record). However, my edit was reverted on the grounds that it was uncited. As it turns out her birth date can also be found on Page 292 of her husband's 2011 book Metamaus, which is available to be seen by anyone on Google Books. Anyway, I offer my apologies to the community for not having come to the talk page sooner; but please rest assured my information was never based on hotbirthdays.com or any such dubious "authority" but from genuine documentation. My only intention was to improve the quality of this article with basic vital information that was always, I thought, strangely absent.

Reduction of ToonBooks material

[edit]

The majority of the material in this section was an unnecessary echo of material in the ToonBooks article. As the awards cited went to the entity "ToonBooks", that article is the proper venue for such detailed material.

On the whole, the article, especially in this section, is overly PR-ized. Careful and conscientiously objective editing will improve all sections. JTGILLICK (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Françoise Mouly/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'll take this one. Should have this to you within a day Jaguar 16:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

[edit]

On hold

[edit]

Not a bad article, I like it. The only problems I could find with it are a few prose issues and the lead section is lacking content, but other than that it is pretty comprehensive and the references all check out. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days until they are all out of the way. Thanks! Jaguar 17:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

[edit]

Thank you for addressing them, I also learned a few things along the way too. The lead summarises the article well and the rest of the article is also well written, enough to make it meet the GA criteria. Well done Jaguar 14:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]