Jump to content

Talk:Mary Harrison McKee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Simply too short.

The Ronin 16:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Harrison McKee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion 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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary Harrison McKee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 09:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive.

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Initial comments

[edit]
  • There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 2.0% in similarity.
  • There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
  • The article is stable. There has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
  • No previous GA reviews.

General comments

[edit]
  • Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
    • No problems were found in the lede.
    • No problems were found in the rest of the article.
    • In the sources I've seen Baby McKee, which is also used in the body. Change Baby Harrison to Baby McKee in the lede.
  • Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
    • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
    • No referencing issues.
    • Listed references are reliable, most of them are books.
      • Birthplace in the infobox is unsourced.
    • Spotchecked Ref 1 (several times), 2 (several times), 4, 6, 7, 14–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
      • Ref 8 fails verification.
    • Copyvio already checked.
  • Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
    • Article addresses the main aspects and it stays focused on the topic.
  • Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
    • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
  • Checking whether the article is stable.
    • As noted in the initial comments, there has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
  • Checking images.
    • All looks good, images are properly licensed.

Final comments

[edit]

@Thebiguglyalien: The article will be on hold for a week so that you can fix these minor issues that I've pointed out in the review. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0, I sourced the place of birth and added alt text. Reference 8 was redundant, so I removed it entirely. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Article passes the GA criteria. Vacant0 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.