Talk:Frederick H. Bealefeld III/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Queen of Hearts (talk · contribs) 22:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 15:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Starting review on this GAN! Great work on expanding this article from a one-sentence stub to... this! This'll take up to one week. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 15:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Tails Wx and thanks for offering to review the article! I never expected this article to get picked up so soon, so there's still some rough edges. Could I please have a few days to fully flesh out the article? Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience, ^Queenof_Hearts 08:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, no worries, Queen of Hearts! I'll pause my review for a few days to let ya continue your work on the article. I'm sorry if I started too early; I was ecstatic in reviewing a GAN for a commissioner or chief of a police department, as I did write Kevin Davis! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 17:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Friendly nudge, Queen of Hearts, it's been nearly two weeks! :0 ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Another nudge since you've edited after the one above, Queen of Hearts! If this is not responded to, I unfortunately may have to fail this review due to inactivity. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tails Wx, I am sorry that this has taken so long; if I do not get back to you in the next few days, please fail this. Queen of ♡ | speak 19:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Status query

Tails Wx, Queen of Hearts, what is the status of this review? While I do see that Queen of Hearts made some edits around the first of the month, that's almost three weeks without action since, and no post to this page since April 26. Should it be failed per the comments above, or perhaps by a date certain if not immediately? Thanks for your responses. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply @BlueMoonset, but yes, I’ll have to fail this for inactivity. I haven’t seen any edits to the article since May 1. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, ⛈️) 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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.