Talk:Lise with a Parasol/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: GnocchiFan (talk · contribs) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- An excellent article, very in-depth and reliably sourced. Can see no issues with it whatsoever, looks good to go! –GnocchiFan (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- As mentioned here, another user has noted issues with duplicate refs and possible references needed in footnotes, but says it doesn't need to be re-assessed. Apologies if this review was not sufficiently thorough; this is my first time reviewing articles for GA on Wikipedia. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- No problem. Can you point out the dupe refs so I can fix them? My eyes aren't as good as yours. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neither can I, if truth be told. I've asked FunkMunk on his talk page. Thanks for your patience
GnocchiFan (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- No hurry on this. I will also take a look later after I get back from work. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- FunkMunk didn't mention "duplicate refs" but WP:duplinks, better known as MOS:REPEATLINK. The ones I noticed are several paragraphs apart, so that's permissible under that guideline's "and at the first occurrence in a section". As for unreferenced footnotes: I see two, La Esméralda and the parents of George Bibescu; these seem trivial and non-controversial and unlikely to be challenged. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, no worries. Just fixed both.[1] The info about Bibescu I had in there was wrong. Most embarrassing, I named his stepmother as his birth mother. Now corrected. Thank you everyone. Please help identify additional issues if possible. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- FunkMunk didn't mention "duplicate refs" but WP:duplinks, better known as MOS:REPEATLINK. The ones I noticed are several paragraphs apart, so that's permissible under that guideline's "and at the first occurrence in a section". As for unreferenced footnotes: I see two, La Esméralda and the parents of George Bibescu; these seem trivial and non-controversial and unlikely to be challenged. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- No hurry on this. I will also take a look later after I get back from work. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neither can I, if truth be told. I've asked FunkMunk on his talk page. Thanks for your patience
- No problem. Can you point out the dupe refs so I can fix them? My eyes aren't as good as yours. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- As mentioned here, another user has noted issues with duplicate refs and possible references needed in footnotes, but says it doesn't need to be re-assessed. Apologies if this review was not sufficiently thorough; this is my first time reviewing articles for GA on Wikipedia. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
