Talk:Jennie Anderson Froiseth/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
All of my suggestions are open to discussion. Once completed, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- These are my edits. Please review for accuracy.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- no concern
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- The article claims Utah gave women the right to vote on "February 12, 1870," but the cited source says 1896. Am I overlooking something?
- Her birthdate isn't cited.
- C. It contains no original research:
- no concern
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- no concern. AGF for the non-print sources
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- I am not overly familiar with the subject, but nothing obvious has been omitted.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Is the single-sentence paragraph about the Edmunds–Tucker Act needed for this article? Was Froiseth directly connected to it somehow?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- no concern
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- no concern
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- no concern.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- This looks pretty thorough, but there are a couple issues that need to be addressed prior to passing. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Argento Surfer, thank you for reviewing this article! Following up with the issues you addressed.
- I've checked the date for suffrage and it was February 10, 1869. Thank you for catching this.
- A source for her birth and death date has been added.
- I do feel the Edmund-Tucker sentence is useful because it follows up on the conclusion of what Anderson was working towards.
Any other issues just let me know.Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied. Happy to promote this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)