Talk:Louise Bryant/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 04:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this one within a week. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Super! Thank you. Finetooth (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• wls: Russian Revolution, Senate, Nevada, University of Nevada in Reno, University of Oregon

Early life

• wl: stump speaker, Puget Sound
• delink UNR
• If the name of the sorority is mentioned in some ref, please name it

Greenwich Village and Cape Cod

• "an established journalist" - the previous section already described him as an "established writer "
• Mary Heaton Vorse - first mention should be full name, but she can be referred to as surname thereafter
• Sara Bard Field - first mention should be full name, but she can be referred to by surname thereafter
• "Bryant wrote to a note to..." - Bryant wrote in a note to

New York

• wl: October Revolution

Death and legacy

• Jan. - spell out as January
• wl: Yale University
• "in Sterling Memorial Library" - in the Sterling Memorial Library

See also

• unnecessary as the Communist Party of the United States and Eugene O'Neill are mentioned in the article

Images

• I don't think the one of Benito Mussolini is necessary, but it's only my opinion and not a suggestion

Few recommendations; well-written article. I'll put in on hold for the usual 7 days in case you're busy with other things. Please ping me when you're done. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I believe I've made all the changes you recommended plus a couple of others along the way. Please poke me up if you see anything else amiss. Finetooth (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Good job. Looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to review this article. Finetooth (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.