Talk:Mother Gothel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 05:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this article should first relate to the original Rapunzel character by the Brothers Grimm, and the Disney Character be mentioned afterwards or be given a specific character page stating her to be THE Disney version. I think it is a big must for all Wiki users to be fed correct information, and not let big companies over-shadow that which they took and used what was there before their creation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanblueeyes87 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes, the article is both well written and succinct, with good structure throughout.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede intro sect conforms to guidelines both with regards to size and scope.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Nominator did a good job citing the article throughout to appropriate sources.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes, in-line citations are provided for directly expressed facts and quotes in multiple locations throughout the article, these are easily checked and verified.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here, article relies upon secondary sources throughout.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers multiple aspects of the subject matter in well organized manner.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Indeed, article is focused on a narrow scope about one character from one film, but does so in a way that is most educational.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is presented in a neutral manner, giving sourced statements from multiple viewpoints and perspectives.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some minor IP concerns to look out for in article edit history, looks like the nominator is on top of these for potential additions of unsourced info, etc. Talk page shows no outstanding major conflicts.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	3 images used, one with appropriate fair use rationale hosted locally on en.wikipedia, and two on Wikimedia Commons with appropriate image information pages and licensing.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are all directly relevant to material discussed in the body text.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good job overall on a most interesting topic about a female fictional character that is well covered in secondary source discussion.

Wowww well that was quick and painless. Thank you so much!!!--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]