Talk:Mary Arthur McElroy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Comment - No "immediate failure" issues. Doesn't have any maintenance templates, no copyvios. Shearonink (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Prose/spelling/grammar are all fine. Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
So far MOS for the lead section, layout, words to watch seem fine, but I want to read through everything a little more to make sure I haven't missed something. Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with lead section or layout. No "words to watch" found. Fiction & lists NA. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
All the refs check out. Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Nicely-done. Every ref I checked is fine. Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
All statements about Mary Arthur McElroy are backed up with careful sourcing. Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran Earwig's CopyVio Tool - no violations found. Shearonink (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Covers the subject as well as can be expected. especially considering she isn't one of the more well-known First Ladies. Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
No problems. Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Stays focused on the subject. Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No edit wars, article is stable. Shearonink (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Status is fine. Shearonink (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Her images are relevant. Maybe just a nicety, but could the captions have the dates of publication? I tried to find the artist for the last portrait but the book doesn't credit the artist who drew all the drawings of the various First Ladies, not even "portrait after painting by" or "portrait after photograph by". The First Ladies' portraits are anonymous (and, an aside, not as well-done as the Presidents' portraits...) Shearonink (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, that second portrait is obviously later and I assume was done off of some (unknown to us) photograph. Personally, I am always interested in where whatever materials (information and images) actually come from... Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article is looking good. I am going to go over it a few more times, to make sure I didn't miss anything that is non-GA quality. Will update the status within a day or two. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely-done. Congrats, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]