Talk:Janee Michelle/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Successful good article nomination
[edit]I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 10, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Writing style is clear and concise. Covers a good depth of material yet with a quite readable format for the reader and editor alike that may not have been previously familiar with the underlying subject matter.
- 2. Verifiable?: Incredibly and meticulously well-cited throughout, to high-quality sources. Suggestion: If possible, try to add "via" fields, as much as possible to cites. Though not necessary for WP:V satisfaction, it just helps other editors in the future for ease of verification. Again, not necessary though. I really like how you went so far as to have cites for the filmography tables and the Notes sect, that's over and above and fantastic.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all major aspects in broad enough detail and yet still staying focused.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: I particularly like her quote in the Business section -- it shows reflection and self-criticism by the subject herself and this demonstrates indeed that the writer(s) and GA Nominator wrote this article with a neutral, matter-of-fact tone, and it is clear both in a read of the article and its presentation and tone, throughout. Good job.
- 5. Stable? I inspected both the article edit history and talk page history going back four (4) months. There were no ongoing issues or disputes.
- 6. Images?: All images from Wikimedia Commons, and upon inspection all image pages check out okay. Suggestion: Suggest adding in-line-citations for facts at end of each of the text captions in the article for the images. Though arguable if same text is in body, this isn't like the WP:LEAD, we really should have in-line cites for that info, even twice. :)
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)