Talk:Rochelle Blumenfeld/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 14:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- There are a lot of short paragraphs and the "life as an artist" section sounds a bit proseline-like. Also I don't think that the "(artist)" parenthetical is good style.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- "Most recent"? That's a vague timeframe.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- 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:
- As far as I can judge the sources, that is.
- C. It contains no original research:
- Two unsourced paragraphs. I cannot see all the sources but of these I see: I am not sure that #4 supports all the material sourced to it, and #5 does not make any claims regarding Harry Fairman's influence on Rochelle Blumenfield.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- As far as I can tell, anyway.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Although "one-person show " sounds a little odd to me.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- File:Cash Register Hill District Paintings.jpg may be a good example, but I think it needs a bit more explanation on why it is being used; is it characteristic for her style?
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Status query
[edit]Jo-Jo Eumerus, it has been over a month since you reviewed this nomination, and over two months since Iblum has edited on Wikipedia. Since there hasn't been any response or any work done on the article, under the circumstances, you may want to consider closing the nomination; the issues seem to be of the sort that require someone familiar with the topic to work on your concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, this seems to be on point. I'll fail this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)