Talk:Hellé Nice/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: BritneyErotica (talk · contribs) 17:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
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. | "In 1949, driver Louis Chiron accused Nice of being a Gestapo agent during World War II, without providing any evidence. This claim disrupted her planned career revival, and her partner subsequently left her." Avoid puffery, consider "In 1949, driver Louis Chiron accused Nice of being a Gestapo agent during World War II, without providing any evidence. This claim disrupted her planned career revival, and her partner subsequently left her."
"
Rework this sentence (Should there be a full stop before "She"?): "
Reword and reference (avoid plummeted) "
"
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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. | Links appropriately archived. | |
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). | Feedback above.
Also I recommend avoiding 4 inline citations for a single sentence "
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Copyvios looks good. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Overall
[edit]- Thanks for taking on the review, I'll hope to make a start on the replies later today Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- @BritneyErotica I've made some replies, back to you Mujinga (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- I quoted my proposed rewrite by accident in the first piece of feedback. I believe I was referring to this section "
In 1949, the esteemed racing driver Louis Chiron accused her of being a Gestapo agent in the war, at a party in Monaco to celebrate the first postwar Monte Carlo Rally. She was too shocked to reply at the time and she was later ostracised
" where it could be clearer with what's being conveyed and also avoids "esteemed" which should generally avoided.- Thanks I see no and made the adjustment Mujinga (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're correct that inline citations do not have to reference every sentence when in a paragraph. This is supported through WP:CITEDENSE. However my feedback refers to WP:CITEKILL, where "...more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations." BritneyErotica (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- OK great that makes more sense, although I do think it's hard for me to udertsand that when at first you said "Also I recommend avoiding 4 inline citations for a single sentence". WP:CITEDENSE and WP:CITEKILL are not guidelines, whereas WP:CITEBUNDLE is and it says "sometimes".. I think I'd rather keep the four refs as they are to be honest and I don't think it's a GA requirement to change them. My rationale is that this is a quite complex issue and I'd like to show i'm using a range of sources to summarise the view that Chiron's allegations do not appear to have been based in fact Mujinga (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's definitely favourable but not a guideline as you say. While the mentioned sentence isn't a run-on sentence, it is still quite lengthy. Nonetheless I won't necessarily hold you for this minor change as it's quite cosmetic and the sentence still reads well as the multiple clauses are properly connected. I also do prefer "well-known" instead of "esteemed" as it appears more neutral and still places emphasis on the point being made.
- I can see you have extensive experience with writing on Wikipedia and it definitely shows so I'm happy to pass this. BritneyErotica (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- OK great that makes more sense, although I do think it's hard for me to udertsand that when at first you said "Also I recommend avoiding 4 inline citations for a single sentence". WP:CITEDENSE and WP:CITEKILL are not guidelines, whereas WP:CITEBUNDLE is and it says "sometimes".. I think I'd rather keep the four refs as they are to be honest and I don't think it's a GA requirement to change them. My rationale is that this is a quite complex issue and I'd like to show i'm using a range of sources to summarise the view that Chiron's allegations do not appear to have been based in fact Mujinga (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I quoted my proposed rewrite by accident in the first piece of feedback. I believe I was referring to this section "