Talk:James Francis Dwyer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 16:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

All of my suggestions are open to discussion. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
These are my copy edits. If you disagree with any of them, we can discuss.
Looks great; much appreciated.

"The sentence was considered to be extremely" - whose opinion is this? It should be attributed inline or rewritten as "The sentence was extremely"
Two sources have considered it to be extreme. I've just rewritten it as you suggested though.

"He relocated to New York the following year," - is this New York City, specifically?
Yep that's right. I've clarified this now.

The lead doesn't seem to include anything from the Legacy section. I think the fact about him writing 1000+ short stories AND/OR him being the first millionaire Australian writer are worthy inclusions.
Done.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
The birthdate isn't cited.
I've placed a citation in the infobox.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
no concern
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
no concern

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I added alt text for the Argosy cover.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This is in good shape. There are a few minor points that need to be addressed, but otherwise this one's ready to pass. FYI, I will be offline until Monday, June 18. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your review Argento Surfer. I think I've addressed all your concerns. let me know if you have any more. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]